Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/beginningsofporcOOIauf 


r.  ■ 


\ 


. 


if . ’'-■. 


n 


I 


ft 


; 


Field  Museum  of  Natural  History 


Publication  192 
Anthropological  Series 


VoL.  XV,  No. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  PORCELAIN 
IN  CHINA 


BY 

Berthold  Laufer 

Curator  of  Anthropology 


With  a Technical  Report  by  H.  W.  Nichols 
Assistant  Curator  of  Geology 


Twelve  Plates  and  Two  Text-Figures 


The  Mrs.  T.  B.  Blackstone  Expedition 


JOHN 

POPE 


Chicago 

1917 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 


Introductory  

Report  on  a Technical  Investigation  of  Ancient  Chinese 
Pottery,  by  H.  W.  Nichols 

I.  PORCELANOUS  HaN  PoTTERY 

II.  Analysis  of  a Green  Glaze  from  a Bowl  of  Han 

Pottery  

Historical  Observations  and  Conclusions 

Historical  Notes  on  Kaolin 

The  Introduction  of  Ceramic  Glazes  into  China,  with 
Special  Reference  to  the  Murrine  Vases  . 

The  Potter’s  Wheel 

Index  


79 


86 

92 

95 

no 

120 

148 

178 


The  Beginnings  of  Porcelain  in  China 

INTRODUCTORY 

In  February  of  1910,  while  in  Si-ngan  fu,  the  capital  of  Shen-si 
Province,  the  writer  received  from  Mr.  Yen,  a Chinese  scholar  and 
antiquarian  of  note  with  whom  he  was  on  very  friendly  terms,  a curious 
bit  of  ancient  pottery,  which  at  first  sight  bore  all  the  characteristic 
marks  associated  with  what  is  known  as  Han  pottery,  but  which,  on 
the  other  hand,  exhibited  a body  and  a glaze  radically  different  from 
that  ware  (Plate  I).  Mr.  Yen  accompanied  the  object  with  a written 
message,  explaining  the  circumstances  under  which  it  had  been  found, 
and  commenting  to  some  extent  on  its  historical  value.  Following 
is  a literal  rendering  of  his  letter:  “I  once  heard  dealers  say  that  they 
had  seen  ‘Han  porcelain’  {Han  ts'e  but  I had  no  faith  in  this 

statement.  In  the  winter  of  the  year  ting  wei  T (1907)  I secured 
a large  vase,  and  suspected  that  it  might  be  an  object  of  the  Han 
period,  but  did  not  dare  to  be  positive  about  this  point.  In  the  spring 
of  last  year  some  one  brought  to  light,  from  a Han  grave  which  he  had 
excavated,  ancient  jade  pieces  and  such-like  things,  together  with 
an  enormous  iron  cooking-stove.  On  the  latter  are  found,  cast  in 
high  relief,  six  characters  reading,  ‘Great  felicity!  May  it  be  service- 
able to  the  lords!  ’ {ta  ki  ch'ang  i hou  wang  'a  ^ i ).  On  the 
top  of  this  stove  was  placed  a small  ‘porcelain  jar.’  I lost  no  time  in 
sending  out  an  agent  to  effect  a purchase,  but  the  stove  had  already 
passed  into  the  hands  of  a merchant.  So  I obtained  only  the  ‘porce- 
lain jar’  in  question,  the  material  and  style  of  which  proved  identical 
with  those  of  the  large  vase  purchased  by  me  years  ago.  For  this 
reason  I now  felt  positive  that  the  question  is  here  of  ‘Han  porcelain.’ 
Subsequently  I acquired  also  a jar  of  the  type  styled  lei  and  big 
and  small  vases;  in  all,  four.  From  that  time  the  designation  ‘Han 
porcelain’  began  to  be  established  in  the  world. 

“Written  in  Ch'ang-ngan  by  Yen  Kan-ytian  ^ @ on  the  day 

when  the  flowers  sprout  forth  (W  tE  ^ 0),  of  the  second  month  of 
the  second  year  of  the  period  Siian-t'ung  (February  27,  1910).” 

While  I had  a deep  respect  for  Mr.  Yen’s  learning  and  extensive 
knowledge  of  archaeological  subjects,  I remained  sceptic  as  to  the 
identification  of  his  jar  with  what  he  styled  Han  ts'e,  and,  though  recog- 
nizing its  intrinsic  merit  as  a piece  of  evidence  filling  a lacune  in  oirr 

79 


8o 


Beginnings  oe  Porcelain 


knowledge  of  ancient  pottery,  I did  not  allow  myself  to  be  carried  away 
by  the  usual  wave  of  enthusiasm  over  a first  discovery  (since  then 
six  years  and  a half  have  elapsed),  but  decided  to  hold  the  matter  in 
abeyance  till  a thorough  analysis,  to  be  made  at  home,  would  permit 
us  to  base  an  opinion  on  facts.  Meanwhile  opportunities  were  seized 
at  Si-ngan  fu  to  collect  as  much  as  possible  of  this  novel  pottery.  My 
first  concern,  naturally,  was  to  secure  the  large  iron  stove  mentioned 
in  Mr.  Yen’s  missive.  A desire  thus  expressed  spreads  in  that  quaint 
old  town  like  a prairie-fire;  and  when  the  sun  had  risen  and  set  again, 
I was  the  lucky  owner  of  that  precious  relic.  Indeed,  Yen’s  descrip- 
tion was  by  no  means  an  exaggeration.  In  type  and  style,  this  cast- 
iron  stove  (Plate  II),  partly  in  decay  and  the  iron  core  having  entirely 
rotted  away,  exactly  corresponds  to  the  well-known  Han  burial  cooking- 
stoves,  and  it  is  the  finest  specimen  of  ancient  cast-iron  that  I was 
able  to  find.  Being  posed  on  four  feet  in  the  form  of  elephant-heads, 
it  is  built  in  the  shape  of  a horse-shoe,  and  provided  with  a chimney 
at  the  rounded  end,  five  cooking-holes,  and  a projecting  platform  in 
front  of  the  fire-chamber.  On  the  latter  is  cast  an  inscription  in  six 
raised  characters,  which  read  exactly  as  indicated  by  Mr.  Yen,  — a 
formula  typical  of  the  Han  and  earlier  ages,  and  encountered  on  many 
bronze  vessels.  The  style  of  these  characters  is  in  thorough  agreement 
with  that  of  Han  writing.  The  object  was  discovered  in  a grave  near 
the  village  Ma-kia-chai  ^ ^ M,  5 li  north  of  the  town  Hien-yang, 
in  Shen-si  Province.  As  previously  remarked,^  without  laying  down 
any  hard  and  fast  rules,  there  is  a great  deal  of  probability  in  assigning 
such  cast-iron  objects  to  the  period  of  the  Later  Han  (a.d.  25-220), 
while  it  is  equally  justifiable  to  extend  the  time  of  their  manufac- 
ture over  the  entire  third  century  of  our  era.  The  iron  stove  thus 
furnishes  a clew  to  the  date  of  the  jug  which  was  found  in  the  same 
grave  with  it.  Needless  to  say,  I left  no  stone  unturned,  and  kept 
on  inquiring  and  hunting  for  this  so-called  Han  ts'e  ware  in  and 
around  Si-ngan.  I succeeded  in  bringing  together  only  eight  more 
pieces  (Plates  HI-X),  among  these  the  vessel  lei  referred  to  in  Yen’s 
memorable  epistle,^  and  a number  of  larger  fragments  and  small 
shards,  which  are  always  precious  and  encouraging  acquisitions  to 
the  archaeologist,  as  they  are  not  under  suspicion,  and  offer  welcome 
study  material. 

* Chinese  Clay  Figures,  p.  216. 

* The  pottery  vase  of  this  designation  is  mentioned  in  the  Chou  li  as  holding 
the  sacrificial  spirits  called  ch'ang,  which  were  offered  to  the  deity  Earth  (Biot, 
Tcheou-li,  Vol.  I,  p.  468).  It  is  the  reproduction  in  clay  of  an  original  bronze- 
type,  frequent  among  the  bronze  vessels  of  the  Chou. 


Introductory 


8i 


It  will  be  noticed  that  these  nine  bits,  in  their  forms  and  decorations, 
decidedly  agree  with  the  mortuary  Han  pottery,^  and  that,  taken 
merely  as  ceramic  types,  they  represent  archaic  types  of  Han  art. 
On  the  other  hand,  however,  apart  from  their  technical  composition, 
they  have  in  common  some  characteristic  features  which  are  not 
found  in  Han  pottery.  To  these  belong  the  curious  loop  handles, 
obviously  imitative  of  a knotted  rope  or  a basketry  handle,  and  the 
geometric  wave  patterns.  The  latter,  it  will  be  remembered,  occur 
also  in  the  relief  bands  on  many  vases  of  Han  pottery,  but  are  of  a 
different  style,  in  the  manner  of  realistic  waves.  There  is  in  our  col- 
lection only  one  unglazed,  gray  Han  pottery  vase  with  a geometric 
wave  design  approaching  that  in  the  above  group;  but  it  is  a much 
bolder  and  freer  composition,  and  not  so  neat  and  refined  as  in  the 
porcelanous  vases.  Even  in  some  shapes,  the  traditional  rules  of  the 
Han  may  not  be  quite  strictly  observed;  they  may  be  less  stern 
rigorous,  and,  while  dignified  and  partially  imposing,  treated  with 
somewhat  greater  individual  freedom.  This,  however,  is  rather  a 
point  of  sentiment  or  impression  than  a ponderable  argument.  The 
deviations  from  the  standard  Han  pottery  are  insignificant  when  con- 
trasted v/ith  what  the  two  groups  have  in  common.  The  best  tradition 
and  spirit  of  Han  art  are  preserved  in  these  nine  productions. 

The  comparative  scarcity  of  this  ware  is  notable,  and  gives  food 
for  serious  reflection.  As  the  writer  was  able  to  secure  on  his  last 
expedition  for  the  Field  Museum  many  hundreds  of  pieces  of  Han  pot- 
tery of  all  types  and  descriptions,  while  several  thousand  specimens 
have  passed  through  his  hands  during  the  last  fifteen  years,  and  as  he 
could  hunt  up  only  nine  representatives  of  this  novel  (porcelanous) 
ware,  these  numbers  may  be  regarded  as  the  relative  (certainly  not 
absolute;  proportions  in  which  the  two  classes  of  pottery  are  to  be  found, 
and,  we  may  add,  were  made  in  the  past.  Two  inferences  may  be 
drawn  from  this  phenomenon, — this  peculiar  ware  was  the  product 
of  only  a single  kiln  or  of  very  few  kilns;  and  these  kilns  did  not  flourish 
during  the  Han  period,  but  either  at  its  very  close,  or  even,  and  more 
probably,  toward  the  middle  or  end  of  the  third  century.  This  point 
will  be  more  fully  discussed  hereafter. 


^ In  speaking  of  Han  pottery,  it  should  be  understood  that  in  this  case  the  term 
“Han”  does  not  refer  to  the  chronologically  exact  boundaries  of  a dynastic  period, 
but  to  an  archceological  epoch,  a certain  phase  of  ancient  Chinese  art,  which  is 
not  necessarily  gauged  by  the  dates  206  B.c.  and  a.d.  220.  There  is  naturally 
an  overlapping  at  both  ends,  and  we  have,  at  least  for  the  present,  no  means  of 
determining  exactly  either  the  beginning  or  the  end  of  Han  art.  This  much  seems 
certain,  that  the  middle  and  the  latter  part  of  the  third  century  a.d.  have  thor- 
oughly remained  under  the  influence  of  Han  tradition. 


82 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


On  my  return  to  America,  two  objects  remained  to  be  pursued  in 
connection  with  this  new  material, — first,  to  secure  the  co-operation 
of  a competent  investigator  for  a chemical  analysis  of  the  body  and 
glaze  of  this  pottery;  and,  second,  to  search  in  other  museums  for 
corresponding  specimens.  My  colleague  Mr.  Nichols,  assistant  curator 
of  geology  in  the  Field  Museum,  volunteered  to  undertake  the  technical 
task,  and  he  has  carried  it  out  with  rare  devotion  and  perseverance. 
His  experiments  were  conducted,  and  his  results  were  obtained,  in 
1912.  From  the  date  of  our  publication  it  will  be  seen  that  we  were 
not  in  a hurry  to  bring  it  to  the  notice  of  the  world.  We  allowed  it  to 
rest  and  to  mature,  and  discussed  the  new  problems  with  each  other 
and  with  ceramic  experts  at  frequent  intervals.  Their  friendly  interest 
and  advice  at  last  encouraged  us  to  make  known  the  results  of  our 
research,  which  we  trust  will  be  of  some  utility  to  students  interested 
A.^ithe  history  of  Chinese  pottery. 

In  regard  to  kindred  objects  in  other  collections,  I have  been  able 
to  obtain  the  following  information.  Mr.  Francis  Stewart  Kershaw 
of  the  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Boston,  Mass.,  who  saw  the  pieces  of 
pottery  in  question  in  the  Field  Museum,  mentioned  to  me  that  similar 
specimens  were  in  the  Boston  Museum.  On  sending  him  some  frag- 
ments from  our  material  for  comparison  with  that  under  his  care,  he 
wrote  as  follows:^ 

“The  bits  of  potsherd  are  quite  large  enough  to  tell  me  their  story, 
and  I am  very  much  obliged  for  them.  Except  in  hardness,  they  are 
similar  to  the  clay  of  three  of  our  pieces,  being  of  the  same  color,  texture, 
and  apparent  constituents.  Two  of  our  pieces  were  bought  in  China 
by  Mr.  Okakura,  and  both  were  labelled  ‘Sung’  by  some  Chinese 
(probably  a dealer).  Okakura  called  one  (12875)  which  is  covered 
with  a blackish  shaded  gray-green  glaze,  opaque  and  dull,  ‘Sung.’ 
The  second  (12865),  which  is  precisely  similar  in  potting,  clay,  and 
glaze,  to  your  Han  porcelanous  jars,  Okakura  called  ‘T'ang.’  Mr. 
Freer,  by  the  way,  has  a vase  like  12865,  which  he  calls  ‘T'ang.’^  The 
third  of  our  pieces  (12118)  was  bought  from  Mr.  C.  F.  Gammon  (for- 
merly a lieutenant  in  the  United  States  Army),  who  obtained  it  in 
Nanking  from  a cooly,  who  had  unearthed  it  while  digging  in  a railway 
cutting  in  Nanking.  The  jar  was  partly  full  of  coins,  all  alike,  of  the 
denomination  ^pan  Hang'  M,  issued  in  175  b.c.  in  the  reign  of  the 


1 The  letter  is  published  here  with  Mr.  Kershaw’s  consent. 

^ This  object  was  exhibited  in  the  National  Museum  of  Washington  in  1912, 
when  a selection  from  the  Freer  Collection  was  temporarily  shown.  I then  had 
occasion  to  see  it.  It  is  not  a T'ang  production,  but  of  exactly  the  same  type  as 
our  early  porcelanous  ware. 


Introductory 


83 


Emperor  Wen.  Mr.  Gammon  told  me  that  he  had  bought  the  jar 
on  the  spot  where  it  was  found.  The  jar  itself,  like  the  others  belong- 
ing to  us,  was  welded  or  coiled  up  by  hand  before  a summary  smooth- 
ing-off on  the  wheel.  It  had  four  loop  handles,  finger-modelled,  at 
the  shoulder  (two  only  of  these  remain),  and  was  glazed  in  a thin 
running  blackish-green,  of  which  the  little  that  still  adheres  is  for  the 
most  part  oxidized  to  dull  brownish-ochre.  The  clay  is  softer  than 
your  shards,  and  softer,  too,  than  that  of  12865  or  12875;  but  it  seems 
to  be  quite  the  same  in  all  other  respects.  It  has  the  same  admixture 
of  black  and  occasional  white  particles  in  the  mass  of  gray,  the  same 
unevenly  ferruginous  surface,  and  the  same  occasional  thickening  of 
that  surface.  The  jar  is  much  less  well  potted  than  your  pieces  and 
ours.  Perhaps  it  is  more  primitive;  that  is,  it  may  be  an  early  example 
of  the  method  used  so  expertly  in  making  your  jars  and  ours.  Perhaps, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  simply  cruder;  that  is,  the  potter  may  have 
used  a well-known  and  well-developed  method  carelessly  in  making 
an  unimportant  vessel.  Who  knows?  I incline  toward  the  latter 
possibility. 

“I  dated  the  jar  ‘Han’  because  of  the  evidence  of  the  coins  found 
in  it.  Now,  emboldened  by  your  ascription  of  the  date  to  the  porce- 
lanous  jars,  I shall  classify  No.  12865  the  Han  period  or  shortly 
after.  As  regards  12875,  because  of  its  different  glaze  and  an  obscure 
device  impressed  on  its  shoiolder,  I am  not  yet  sure.” 

At  my  request  Mr.  Kershaw  was  good  enough  to  send  me  for  ex- 
amination the  pan-liang  copper  coins,  twenty-one  all  together,  found  in 
Mr.  Gammon’s  jar.  They  all  proved  to  be  authentic,  as  particularly 
determined  by  close  comparison  with  numerous  corresponding  issues 
in  the  Chalfant  coin  collection,  and  to  have  been  issued  under  the  Han.^ 
The  presence  of  this  batch  of  coins  in  that  vessel  is,  of  comse,  no  abso- 
lute proof  warranting  us  in  assigning  the  vessel  to  the  early  Han  period, 
as  these  coins  may  still  have  been  in  circulation  long  after  Plan  times. 
In  1901  I found  in  actual  circulation  at  Si-ngan  fu  Han  copper  coins 
with  the  legend  wu  chu.  A collection  of  twenty-one  Han  pan-liang 
coins  in  a single  jar  would  rather  hint  at  a high  appreciation  of  this 
money,  and  such  is  rather  more  probable  in  post-Han  than  in  Han 
times.  At  any  rate,  the  exclusive  presence  of  a single  Han  issue, 
together  with  the  absence  of  any  later  coin,  would  seem  to  favor  a 
period  approaching  very  closely  the  age  of  the  Han. 


1 Money  with  this  legend,  weighing  exactly  half  an  ounce  {pan-liang),  was 
first  issued  under  the  Ts'in  (see  Chavannes,  Memoires  historiques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien, 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  539,  542). 


84 


Beginnings  oe  Porcelain 


Several  similar  pieces  have  been  collected  by  Mr.  Orvar  Karlbeck, 
an  official  of  the  Tientsin-Pukow  Railway,  residing  at  Chu-chou, 
Ngan-hui  Province.  This  gentleman,  in  the  course  of  several  years’ 
residence  in  China,  has  formed  a very  interesting  collection  of  ancient 
pottery,  that  consists  of  144  pieces.  I did  not  have  occasion  to  see 
it,  but,  judging  from  photographs  and  descriptions  which  he  has  been 
good  enough  to  send  me,  he  seems  to  own  several  bits  such  as  are  here 
under  consideration. 

Mr.  R.  L.  Hobson,  the  prominent  expert  in  pottery  of  the  British 
Museum,  while  visiting  Chicago  in  January,  1913,  and  doing  me  the 
honor  of  studying  the  collections  under  my  care,  called  my  attention 
to  two  early  jars  of  similar  glazes  which  were  found  at  Black  Rock  Hill 
in  Fu-chou,  and  are  now  preserved  in  the  British  Museum.  They 
are  sketched  and  described  by  H.  F.  Holt.^  They  are  oval-shaped 
jars,  with  short  necks  and  straight  rims,  a pair  of  loop  handles  (in 
one  piece  double  handles)  being  stuck  on  to  the  shoulders.  They  are 
described  as  being  made  “of  a grayish  clay  resembling  almost  stone- 
ware, over  which  a coat  of  greenish-brown  glaze  has  been  coarsely  laid; 
a curved  line  at  the  bottom  sharply  defines  where  the  glazing  ended.” 
The  further  remark,  however,  that  the  glaze  is  quite  decomposed  and 
can  easily  be  detached,  would  rather  hint  at  this  glaze  being  of  a char- 
acter different  from  that  on  our  specimens,  which,  owing  to  its  chemical 
composition,  is  not  capable  of  decomposition.  The  great  antiquity 
of  these  two  jars  is  not  doubtful:  in  shape  and  style  they  are  true 
descendants  of  Han  pottery.  Holt  adduces  an  interesting  piece  of 
evidence  as  to  their  age, — the  fact  that  the  grave  in  which  they  were 
found  was  situated  within  the  city- walls;  and,  as  no  burial  within  the 
latter  is  permitted,  they  would  seem  to  have  been  deposited  there  at  a 
time  prior  to  the  erection  of  the  wall.  He  refers  to  the  “Geography 
of  the  Manchu  Dynasty”  {Ta  Ts'ing  i t'ung  chi)  as  containing  the 
information  that  in  a.d.  625  Fu-chou  was  a city  of  the  first  class. 

Mr.  Hobson  was  also  good  enough  to  read  in  manuscript  Mr. 
Nichols’s  report,  that  follows,  and  to  anticipate  some  of  these  results 
in  his  admirable  work  “Chinese  Pottery  and  Porcelain,”^  which  denotes 
decided  progress  in  our  knowledge  of  the  entire  subject,  and  is  now 
the  best  general  handbook  on  porcelain.  Referring  to  Mr.  Nichols’s 
analyses  of  the  body  and  glaze  of  this  pottery,  Mr.  Hobson  states, 
“The  results  show  that  the  body  is  composed  of  a kaolin-like  material 


^ On  Chinese  Cinerary  Urns  {Journal  British  Archaological  Association, 
Vol.  XXVII,  1871,  pp.  343-349,  Plate  XVII). 

^ Vol.  I,  p.  15  (New  York  and  London,  1915). 


Introductory 


85 


(probably  a kind  of  decomposed  pegmatite),  and  is,  in  fact,  an  incipient 
porcelain,  lacking  a sufficient  grinding  of  the  material.  The  glaze  is 
composed  of  the  same  material  softened  with  powdered  limestone  and 
colored  with  iron  oxide.  . . . The  nature  of  the  pottery,  in  spite 

of  its  coarse  grain  and  dark  color,  which  is  probably  due  in  part  to  the 
presence  of  iron  in  the  clay,  seems  to  show  that  the  manufacture  of 
porcelain  was  not  far  distant.” 

The  report  of  Mr.  Nichols  is  of  sufficient  importance  and  interest 
to  warrant  its  publication  in  full.  It  is  divided  into  two  parts.  Part  I 
is  devoted  to  a detailed  investigation  of  the  ancient  porcelanous  ware; 
and,  in  order  to  render  possible  a comparison  with  the  earlier  Han 
pottery,  analysis  of  a green  glaze  from  a bowl  of  Han  pottery  follows 
in  Part  II. 


REPORT  ON  A TECHNICAL  INVESTIGATION  OF  ANCIENT 
CHINESE  POTTERY 

By  H.  W.  Nichols 

I.  PORCELANOUS  HaN  PoTTERY 

For  the  purpose  of  analysis,  one  fragment  about  two  inches  long  and 
two  inches  wide,  and  a number  of  smaller  pieces,  were  examined.  The 
body  of  the  ware,  which  is  from  three-sixteenths  to  one-quarter  of  an 
inch  thick,  consists  of  a gray  vitrified  porous  substance  which  contains 
a few  scattered  black  specks  of  minute  size  and  glassy  lustre.  The  body 
is  coated  on  the  outside  with  a very  thin  opaque  red  slip,  and  on  the 
inside  with  a white  engobe  and  a thick  transparent  greenish-yellow  glaze. 

Chemical  Characters  of  the  Body. — An  analysis  of  the  body  from 
which  both  the  inner  and  outer  glaze  and  engobe  coats  had  been  removed, 
but  with  the  black  specks  included,  was  made  in  the  Museum  laboratory. 

Analysis  of  Body 


Silica,  SiOa 71.61 

Alumina,  AljOs  18.67 

Iron  oxide,  FeO 3-57 

Lime,  CaO 0.59 

Magnesia,  MgO 0.33 

Soda,  Na20  4-43 

Potash,  KjO 1.37 


100.57 

When  this  is  compared  with  other  analyses,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  there  are  small  ferruginous  specks  scattered  through  this  body, 
so  that  the  iron  content  shown  by  the  analysis  is  higher  than  that  of 
the  true  body  substance. 

Table  Showing  Analysis  of  Ancient  Chinese  Pottery 


In  comparison  with  that  of  modern  Chinese  and  Japanese  porcelains 


Silica,  SiOi  . 

A 

71.61 

. : 

74-53 

3 

71-31 

69 

70 

C 

73-30  69 

70.50 

Alumina,  AI2O3 

. 18.67 

16.09 

19-74 

23.60 

22.20 

19.30  21.30 

0 

d 

Iron  oxide,  FeO 

• • 3-57 

1.03 

0.73 

1.20 

2 

3.40  0.80 

0.80 

Lime,  CaO  . 

• • 0.59 

0,06 

0. 17 

0.30 

0.80 

0.60  I. 10 

0.50 

Magnesia,  MgO 

■ • 0.33 

0.25 

2.04 

0.20 

trace 

trace  trace 

trace 

■ Soda,  Na20 

• • 4-43 

1. 19 

0. 10 

3-30 

3.60 

2.50  3.40 

j 6.00 

1 Potash,  K2O 

1-37 

4-37 

4.04 

2,90 

2.70 

2.30  1.80 

Explanation  of  Table 

A. — Ancient  porcelanous  Chinese  pottery  in  question,  analysis  by  H.  W.  Nichols. 

B.  — Modern  Japanese  porcelains,  analyses  by  H.  A.  Seger  (see  his  Collected  Writings,  Vol.  II, 

p.  686). 

C.  — Modern  Chinese  porcelains,  analyses  by  A.  Salv£tat,  contained  in  the  work  of  S.  Julien, 
Histoire  et  fabrication  de  la  porcelaine  chinoise,  p.  Lxxxvi  (Paris,  1856).  . 

TlublsUe  ihouip  iKi?  uri/ucs  I o/QfK. 

b i)  dCl ! e f;</ 

( 


Technical  Investigation  of  Chinese  Pottery  87 

The  analysis  proves  that  this  body  has  all  the  chemical  characters 
of  a true  porcelain.  Its  resemblance  to  the  analyses  of  Japanese  porce- 
lains made  by  Seger^  is  remarkable. 

The  silica  and  alumina  both  fall  within  the  rather  narrow  limits 
set  by  Seger  for  this  ware.  The  important  deviations  from  the  com- 
position of  Japanese  porcelain  are  precisely  those  which  characterize 
modern  Chinese  porcelains.  These  are;  the  high  content  of  iron,  in 
this  instance  of  little  significance;  the  high  alkali  content;  and  the 
excess  of  potash  over  soda.  An  important  feature  in  the  composition 
of  porcelain  and  pottery  bodies  is  the  silica-alumina  ratio.  The  ware 
presents,  in  this  feature,  a decidedly  Japanese  aspect.  The  Chinese 
porcelains  analyzed  by  Salvetat  generally  are  higher  in  alumina,  and 
lower  in  silica,  than  this  specimen  and  the  Japanese  bodies.  The 
analyses  of  Chinese  porcelain  indicate  a decidedly  variable  composition, 
as  might  be  expected  from  Julien’s  description  of  the  rather  haphazard 
way  in  which  the  mixtures  are  made.  In  respect  to  this  silica-alumina 
ratio,  which  sharply  distinguishes  Oriental  from  Occidental  porcelains, 
the  ancient  bit  of  pottery  under  consideration  comes  distinctly  into  the 
Oriental  class. 

The  quantity  of  alkali  is  essentially  the  same  as  in  Salv^tat’s  analyses 
of  modern  Chinese  porcelains.  Salvetat’s  average  is  5.59%,  while 
this  ware  contains  5.80%.  The  quantity  of  iron  in  some  of  Salv^tat’s 
specimens  is  essentially  as  great  as  that  of  this  specimen.  The  varia- 
tion among  themselves  of  the  analyses  of  modern  Chinese  porcelain 
is  fully  as  great  as  the  difference  between  these  and  the  pottery  under 
discussion.  As  the  chemical  composition  of  the  ware  is  that  of  a good 
porcelain,  the  reason  it  failed  to  make  a fine  ware  must  be  sought  in 
those  physical  features  which  are  consequent  on  the  handling  of  the 
materials  during  manufacture,  and  not  in  any  qualities  inherent  in 
the  nature  of  the  materials  themselves. 

Physical  Characters  of  the  Body. — The  body  is  composed  of  a 
gray  vitrified  material,  with  the  slightly  greasy  lustre  characteristic  of 
some  varieties  of  vitrified  ware.  Under  an  ordinary  hand  magnifying- 
glass,  it  appears  as  a kind  of  solidified  froth  composed  of  pores  enclosed 
by  thin  walls  of  a translucent  porcelain-like  substance.  These  pores 
are  elongated,  so  that  there  is  a well-defined  laminated  structure. 
There  are  numerous  inclusions  of  a black  and  glassy  iron  slag.  Each  of 
these  glassy  inclusions  surrounds  a minute  spherical  bubble.  Through- 
out the  body  there  are  angular  patches  of  lighter  and  darker  gray  which 
are  vestiges  of  coarse  particles  in  the  mixture  from  which  the  body 


* Collected  Writings,  V'ol.  II,  pp.  687  and  716. 


88 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


was  burned.  In  thin  fragments  the  material  is  somewhat  translucent. 
A somewhat  thick  micro-section  transmits  light  as  freely  as  do  many 
rock-sections,  although  confusion  from  the  overlapping  of  much  fine 
detail  does  not  permit  a very  profitable  study  of  the  section. 

It  is  not  possible  to  teU  from  the  examination  of  any  well-burned 
vitrified  ware  whether  the  mixture  from  which  it  is  burned  is  of  natural 
or  artificial  origin.  It  would  not  be  at  all  impossible,  although  per- 
haps a task  of  some  difficulty,  to  find  along  the  outcrop  of  some  peg- 
matite dike  kaolin-like  material  from  which  a body  identical  with  this 
might  be  burned.  The  Japanese,  formerly  at  any  rate,  burned  their 
wares  from  a single  clay,  while  the  Chinese  use  a mixture.  This  ware 
might  have  been  prepared  either  way. 

The  raw  material  contained  iron-bearing  minerals  in  coarse  grains 
only.  Each  grain  has  left  its  individual  splash  of  glassy  black  slag. 
The  absence  of  any  marked  tone  of  buff,  green,  or  yellow  in  the  color  of 
the  mass  indicates  that  there  was  no  important  quantity  of  finely-divided 
ferruginous  mineral  present.  A simple  and  crude  washing  would  have 
eliminated  the  iron-bearing  minerals.  Although  the  pottery  does  not 
look  at  all  like  porcelain,  the  only  real  point  of  difference,  as  far  as 
the  body  is  concerned,  is  the  porosity  of  the  ware.  This  porosity  seems 
to  be  due  to  the  use  of  too  coarsely  ground  material,  with  not  enough 
fine  to  fill  the  interspaces.  It  is  a porcelain  froth. 

The  Outside  Red  Glaze. — The  red  glaze  on  the  outside  is  very 
thin.  Its  surface  is  rough  and  interrupted  by  numerous  minute  black 
blotches,  where  ferruginous  minerals  from  the  body  have  penetrated. 
The  glaze  is  very  uniformly  distributed.  It  has  not  run  during  firing, 
nor  has  it  crazed  since.  It  is  in  as  good  condition  to-day,  as  on  the 
day  it  was  made.  It  has,  as  well  as  may  be  determined  under  a power- 
ful magnifying-glass,  the  structure,  or  rather  lack  of  structure,  of  a 
uniform,  translucent,  vitrified  mass.  It  seems  to  be  a simple  slip 
of  some  good  red-burning  clay.  It  is  so  thin  that  a sample  for  analysis 
could  not  be  obtained.  Between  the  red  coating  and  the  body  is  a 
white  engobe  coat.  This  nowhere  exceeds  one-tenth  of  a millimetre 
in  thickness.  It  differs  from  the  similar  coating  under  the  transparent 
glaze  of  the  inside  of  the  vessel  only  in  its  greater  thinness  and  in  the 
possession  of  a slight  pinkish  color,  apparently  absorbed  from  the 
overlying  glaze.  In  places  this  coat  becomes  very  thin  and  even 
occasionally  disappears. 

The  Inside  Glaze. — That  surface  of  the  fragment  examined, 
which  corresponds  to  the  inside  of  the  vessel  of  which  it  formed  a part, 
is  covered  with  a transparent  glaze  upon  a porcelain-like  engobe. 
This  engobe  coat  is  thicker  than  that  upon  the  outside  of  the  vessel. 


Technical  Investigation  of  Chinese  Pottery  89 

Its  average  thickness  is  one-quarter  millimetre,  but  this  thickness  is 
very  variable.  Although  it  is  not  pure  white  in  color,  it  is  of  a dis- 
tinctly lighter  gray  than  the  body;  also  it  differs  from  the  body,  in 
that  it  is  compact  and  free  from  pores.  When  examined  under  a 
hand  magnifying-glass,  it  seems  to  be  very  sharply  and  distinctly  sep- 
arated from  the  body.  When  examined  as  a thin  section  under  the 
microscope,  the  sharp  line  of  demarcation  disappears,  as  well  as 
the  difference  in  color.  It  then  seems  to  be  of  the  same  material  as  the 
body  freed  from  ferruginous  particles  and  from  coarse  grains,  so  that 
it  has  vitrified  into  a dense  non-porous  body.  The  object  of  such  a 
coating  as  this  is  twofold:  it  provides  a light-colored  background  for 
the  transparent  glaze,  whereby  its  brilliancy  is  enhanced;  and  it  provides 
an  impervious  support  for  the  glaze,  which  otherwise  might  be  absorbed 
into  the  pores  of  the  body  during  the  firing.  The  appearance  of  the 
material,  when  viewed  in  the  form  of  a micro-section,  suggests  that 
this  coat  is  merely  the  result  of  floating  the  finer  particles  of  the  mix 
to  the  surface  during  the  process  of  forming  the  vessel.  This  would 
ordinarily  be  accomplished  by  the  friction  of  the  hand  or  of  some  tool. 
But  the  coating  under  the  more  fusible  glaze,  where  its  presence  is 
imperative,  is  much  thicker  than  that  under  the  less  fusible  glaze, 
where  the  necessity  for  it  is  much  less.  The  way  the  coarse  particles 
of  the  body  project  through  the  red  glaze  is  difficult  to  understand  on 
the  theory  of  a floated  surface;  and  there  are  no  signs  of  dragging  along 
the  surface  of  those  coarse  particles  which  lie  immediately  under  the 
surface;  also  it  would  be  difficult  to  float  so  much  fine  material  when  the 
deficiency  of  this  matter  is  such  as  to  leave  so  many  voids  in  the  interior. 
The  preponderance  of  evidence  indicates  that  this  material  is  an  engobe 
coat  put  on  possibly  by  dipping,  but  more  probably  by  spraying.  In 
both  its  physical  and  chemical  aspect,  this  coat  is  a true  porcelain. 

The  glaze  is  a greenish-yellow  glass,  brown  in  the  thicker  places. 
It  is  of  variable  thickness,  as  it  ran  badly  during  firing.  Aside  from 
this  serious  deficiency,  it  is  a remarkably  good  glaze.  It  still  adheres 
firmly  to  the  body,  and  there  has  been  no  chipping  or  scaling.  The 
crazing  takes  the  form  of  a fine  and  uniform  network  of  cracks. 
The  brilliancy  is  very  great,  and  there  is  no  sign  of  devitrification.  The 
attainment  of  these  qualities,  especially  the  continued  perfect  adhesion, 
which  necessitates  a very  nice  adjustment  of  the  coefficients  of  expan- 
sion of  body  and  glaze,  indicates  that  the  potters  had  already  attained 
a high  degree  of  skill.  Running  of  a glaze  of  this  type  during  firing  is 
a condition  unusually  difficult  to  contend  with.  The  color  almost 
certainly  identifies  this  glaze  as  a lime-alumina-iron  silicate,  and  this 
is  verified  by  an  analysis  made  in  the  Museum  laboratories. 


90 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


Analysis  of  the  Glaze 


Silica.  Si02  54-17 

Alumina,  AI2O3 14.16 

Iron  oxide,  FeO 4.36 

Lime,  CaO 19  05 

Magnesia,  MgO 2.04 

Soda,  Na20 5.49 

Potash,  K2O 0.00 


99.27 

This  is  obviously  an  alkali-lime-iron-alumina  silicate  glaze.  This 
is  so  purely  a Chinese  type,  that  it  is  useless  to  compare  it  with  any  but 
Chinese  glazes.  Even  the  Japanese  glazes  differ  materially  from  those 
of  the  Chinese,  being  intermediate  in  character  between  these  and  the 
European.  Those  Chinese  porcelain  glazes  the  analyses  of  which  have 
been  examined  are  all  white,  and  hence  free  or  nearly  so  from  iron. 
The  influence  of  iron  on  a glaze  is  very  great,  and  extends  to  nearly  all 
its  properties.  Hence,  in  modifying  a yellow  glaze  to  a white  one, 
there  is  much  to  do  in  the  way  of  readjusting  the  proportions  of  all  the 
elements,  besides  removing  the  iron.  Therefore  the  close  correspond- 
ence which  appeared  among  the  several  body  analyses  will  not  be  found 
to  hold  between  the  yellow  and  the  colorless  glazes,  even  if  one  has  been 
derived  from  the  other. 

Comparative  Table  of  Chinese  Glazes 


A 

B 

C 

Silica,  Si02  ' 

• - ■ • 5417 

68 

64. 1 

Alumina,  AI2O3  . . . . 

12 

10.2 

Iron  oxide,  FeO  ... 

. . . . 4.38 

traces 

traces 

Lime,  CaO 

. . . . 19.05 

14 

21 

Magnesia,  MgO  . . . . 

. 2.04 

not  determined 

Alkali,  NajO,  K2O  . . . 

. . . . 5.49 

6 

5 

Explanation  of  Table 

A. — Ancient  Chinese  pottery  glaze,  analysis  by  H.  W.  Nichols. 

B and  C. — Modem  Chinese  porcelain  glazes,  analyses  by  A.  SALviiTAT  (1.  c.,  p.  132). 

The  glaze  on  porcelain  is  thin,  and  Salvetat  evidently  had  difficulty 
in  securing  enough  material  for  a thorough  analysis.  The  examples 
given  in  the  table  are  sufficient  to  show  that  all  these  glazes  are  of  the 
same  character. 

A comparison  of  the  compositions  of  glaze  and  body  suggests  that 
the  glaze  has  been  prepared  by  mixing  the  material  of  the  body  with 
pulverized  limestone.  A brief  calculation  of  the  quantitative  relations 
between  the  several  elements  of  body  and  glaze  confirms  this  impression 
in  such  a manner  that  there  can  remain  no  doubt  as  to  the  mode  of 


Technical  Investigation  of  Chinese  Pottery  91 

preparation  of  the  glaze.  It  must  have  been  made  by  the  addition  of 
approximately  one  part  of  limestone,  or  the  lime  burned  from  it,  to 
two  parts  of  the  clay  from  which  the  body  was  prepared.  It  is  also 
possible,  but  not  certain,  that  small  quantities  of  soda  and  oxide  of 
iron  were  added  to  rectify  minor  defects. 

The  calculation  follows:  It  is  assumed  that  the  limestone  is  a pure, 
more  or  less  magnesian,  limestone,  such  as  would  naturally  be  employed. 
The  limestone  is  taken  to  be  somewhat  magnesian,  partly  from  inspec- 
tion of  the  analyses,  and  partly  because  a non-magnesian  limestone  is 
rather  an  unusual  rock.  As  such  a limestone  is  practically  free  from 
silica,  the  silica  of  the  glaze  must  come  from  the  clay,  and  the  ratio 
of  the  silicas  in  body  and  glaze  will  give  a measure  of  the  quantity  of 
clay  used  in  the  mixture.  As  the  body  contains  71.61%  silica,  and  the 
glaze  54.17%,  it  is  evident  that,  ignoring  for  the  present  losses  in 
burning,  75.66  parts  of  clay  were  used  per  100  parts  of  glaze.  The 
following  table  may  then  be  readily  calculated: 


Table  showing  Relations  between  the  Composition  of  the  Glaze  and  of 
A Mixture  of  75.66%  of  the  Pottery  Body  with  24.34%  of  Lime 


BODY 

75-66% 
OF  BODY 

GLAZE 

DIFFER- 

ENCE 

LIME- 

STONE 

EXCESS 

Silica,  Si02 

. 71.61 

54-17 

54-17 

0.00 

0.00 

Alumina,  AI2O3 

. 18.67 

14.  12 

14.16 

—0.04 

— 0.04 

Iron  oxide,  FeO  . 

• 3-57 

2.70 

4-36 

1.66 

1 .66 

Lime,  CaO 

• 0.59 

0.45 

19-05 

18.60 

18.60 

0.00 

Magnesia,  MgO  . 

• 0.33 

0.25 

2.04 

1-79 

1-79 

0.00 

Soda,  Na20 

• 4-43 

3-35 

5-49 

2 . 14 

2.14 

Potash,  K2O  . 

• 1-37 

1 .04 

0.00 

— 1 .04 

— 1 .04 

Carbonic  Acid,  CO2  . 

16-54 

100.57 

76.08 

99.27 

36-93 

In  the  column  marked  “excess”  are  recorded  the  differences  between 
the  actual  and  computed  compositions  of  the  glaze.  These  differences 
are  trifling.  The  absence  of  potash  from  the  glaze  is  in  line  with  the 
known  volatilization  of  potash  from  the  surface  of  wares  subject  to 
the  kiln  fires. 

The  slight  excess  of  iron  oxide  and  soda  in  the  mixture  is  not  sur- 
prising, as  crude,  untreated  earths  of  the  kind  used  are  by  no  means 
uniform  in  composition,  and  greater  discrepancies  than  this  are  to  be 
expected  in  analyses  of  consecutive  batches  of  such  material.  Especially 
common  is  such  an  interchange  of  potash  and  soda  as  appears  in  this 
instance.  The  correspondences  between  figures  and  theory  are,  in 
fact,  so  close,  that  it  is  probable  that  the  material  employed  was  care- 
fully selected  by  such  physical  characters  as  color,  texture,  etc. 


92 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


It  is  of  course  possible  that  the  potters  had  learned  to  adjust  the 
qualities  of  the  glaze  by  small  additions  of  alkali  and  iron  oxide.  Slight 
variations  in  the  quantity  of  either  of  these  substances  greatly  influence 
the  physical  properties  of  the  glaze. 

This  table  cannot  give  more  than  a rough  approximation  of  the 
quantities  of  the  two  ingredients  of  the  mixture,  as  the  losses  of  volatile 
matter  in  both  limestone  and  clay  during  burning  cannot  be  computed 
with  accuracy.  The  table  suggests  that  not  far  from  one  part  of  lime- 
stone to  two  parts  of  clay  were  employed.  We  may  safely  conclude 
that  this  glaze  was  made  by  adding  pulverized  limestone,  lime,  or 
milk  of  lime  to  the  material  from  which  the  body  of  the  pottery 
was  made.  The  modern  Chinese  glaze  for  porcelain  is  made  by  mixing 
lime  with  one  of  the  two  ingredients  of  which  they  make  the  body. 
This  process  seems  to  be  peculiar  to  China. 

Conclusions. — At  the  time  this  ware  was  made,  the  potters  had 
already  acquired  a high  degree  of  dexterity.  Many  of  the  things  that 
they  accomplished  in  the  fabrication  of  this  pottery  required  technical 
skill  of  no  mean  order.  The  engobe  coat,  without  which  no  satisfactory 
glaze  could  be  made  upon  so  porous  a ware,  was  used.  The  expansion 
of  the  glaze  has  been  very  accurately  adjusted  to  that  of  the  body. 
The  glaze  is  remarkably  brilliant  for  one  free  from  lead.  The  glaze 
has  no  large  bubbles,  nor  are  small  bubbles  numerous  enough  to  cloud 
the  ware.  On  the  other  hand,  they  made  the  glaze  too  thick,  and  they 
could  not  prevent  it  from  running  during  the  firing. 

With  potters  as  skilful  as  these,  the  discovery  of  methods  of  over- 
coming the  porosity  of  the  ware,  and  thus  making  it  a true  porcelain, 
should  be  only  a matter  of  time.  As  the  engobe  coat  is  porcelain,  it 
is  quite  possible  that  the  knowledge  was  not  lacking  even  at  that  time. 
They  may  not  have  realized  that  a dense  ware  would  be  worth  the 
great  expense  involved  in  grinding  the  materials  to  the  necessary 
fineness  by  the  crude  methods  then  available,  and  in  the  control  of  the 
drying  and  firing  methods  to  prevent  distortion  of  the  ware. 

II.  Analysis  of  a Green  Glaze  from  a Bowl  of  Han  Pottery 

This  is  a brilliant  glassy  glaze  of  a bottle-green  color  from  a Han 
pottery  bowl  (Cat.  No.  118578).  It  is  thickly  applied  over  a red 
porous  body. 

It  is  believed  that  the  material  selected  for  analysis  correctly 
represents  the  original  unaltered  glaze.  The  glaze  with  its  red  backing 
was  crushed  to  fragments  of  about  a millimetre  average  size,  and  clear 
unaltered  fragments  were  selected  after  scrutiny  under  a powerful 


Technical  Investigation  or  Chinese  Pottery 


93 


glass.  These  fragments  were  freed  from  the  adhering  films  of  red 
earthy  matter  by  use  of  forceps  and  a fine  file.  As  finally  prepared, 
the  glass  showed  no  altered  material,  nor  any  but  a few  unweighable 
traces  of  earthy  matter. 

The  analysis  gives: 


Silica,  Si02 29.91 

Lead  oxide,  PbO 65.45 

Iron  oxide,  FeO 0.81 

Copper  oxide,  CuO 2.60 

Lime,  CaO 0.94 

Alkalies,  Na20,  K2O 0.00 


99-51 

This  gives  the  molecular  formula: 

I RO  : 1.4  Si02  or  nearly  5 RO.  7 SiOj. 

The  traces  of  iron  and  lime  are  obviously  impurities. 

This  is  a simple  lead  silicate  colored  by  copper,  and  is  utterly  tmlike 
any  glaze  of  which  I have  any  analysis,  the  nearest  approach  to  it  being 
the  alkali-lead  silicate  which  seems  to  have  been  an  ordinary  glaze  in 
all  countries.  The  omission  of  alkali  places  this  glaze  in  a very  differ- 
ent class.  It  could  be  easily  and  simply  compounded,  as  there  are  but 
three  ingredients, — some  lead  salt  (perhaps  red  lead  or  white  lead),  a 
pure  white  sand,  and  a small  quantity  of  some  copper  compound  for 
coloring. 

Professor  R.  T.  Stull,  Acting  Director  of  the  Ceramic  Department 
of  the  University  of  Illinois,  has  been  good  enough  to  supply  the  fol- 
lowing additional  information  on  the  preceding  analysis: 

“I  am  very  much  interested  in  the  data  you  present  on  the  early 
Chinese  glaze.  I have  calculated  an  approximate  empirical  formula 
from  the  analysis,  which  gives: 

.827  PbO 

.093  CuO  1.408  SiOj 
.049  CaO 
.031  FeO 

“This  approximates  closely  the  theoretical  formula: 

'iCuoj  i-SSi02  = 2R0.  3Si02 

A glaze  can  be  made  by  mixing  the  following  materials,  which  would 
be  very  similar  to  the  Chinese  glaze  when  first  made: 


Red  lead 

205 

Copper  oxide 

8 

Potter’s  flint 

90 

94 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


It  is  quite  probable  that  the  Chinese  glaze  was  originally  made  by 
mixing  together  three  ingredients, — a lead  compound,  a copper  com- 
pound, and  a form  of  silica.  The  iron  and  lime  present  were  probably 
impurities  existing  in  the  raw  materials  used  in  making  the  glaze. 
A glaze  of  this  type  (which  is  in  reality  a glass,  since  glazes  generally 
contain  alumina)  fuses  at  a very  low  temperature,  is  very  brilliant, 
has  a high  specific  gravity,  high  index  of  refraction,  and  high  coefficient 
of  expansion;  and  is  easily  dissolved  by  chemical  agents  (comparatively 
so).  Owing  to  the  high  coefficient  of  expansion,  the  glaze  is  very 
susceptible  to  crazing.  The  glaze  could  be  improved  by  the  addition 
of  alumina  in  the  form  of  clay,  which  would  lower  the  coefiicient  of 
expansion,  thus  reducing  crazing,  and  would  make  the  glaze  more 
resistant  to  the  weathering  action  or  to  chemical  agents.  In  good 
glaze  practice,  it  is  customary  to  introduce  an  alkali  in  some  form, 
although  good  glazes  can  be  produced  without  the  use  of  alkali.  One 
glaze  being  used  for  glazing  roofing  tile  has  the  formula: 

.9  PbO 

.15  AI2O3  1.6  Si02, 

.1  CuO 

which  is  very  similar  to  the  Chinese  glaze  plus  AI2O3.  A mixture  which 
will  produce  this  glaze  is: 

Red  lead  205 

Copper  oxide  8 
Ball  clay  39 

Potter’s  flint  78 

If  the  Chinese  glaze  has  been  disintegrated  by  long  exposure,  the 
alkalis  would  naturally  be  leached  out  partially,  if  not  entirely.”^ 


1 The  material  for  analysis  was  carefully-picked,  unaltered  fragments  [h.w.n.]. 


HISTORICAL  OBSERVATIONS  AND  CONCLUSIONS 


The  preceding  report  of  Mr.  Nichols  leaves  no  doubt  that  the 
pottery  in  question,  as  confirmed  by  Mr.  Hobson,  is  a porcelanous  or 
porcelain-like  ware,  as  regards  the  composition  of  both  body  and  glaze. 
It  is  a forerunner  of  true  porcelain;  it  represents  one  of  the  initial  or 
primitive  stages  of  development  through  which  porcelain  must  have 
passed  before  it  could  reach  that  state  of  perfection  for  which  the 
Chinese  product  gained  fame  throughout  the  world.  The  history  of 
porcelain  has  been  singularly  exposed  to  misrepresentations  and  mis- 
understandings, chiefly  for  the  reason  that  Chinese  accounts  of  the 
subject  are  obscure,  enigmatic,  and,  moreover,  disappointingly  meagre 
and  unsatisfactory.  In  his  eminently  critical  and  excellent  work, 
Hobson  has  done  a great  deal  to  eradicate  many  of  the  old  supersti- 
tions. It  was  obvious  that  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  porcelain  could 
be  solved  only  by  archaeological,  not  by  philological,  methods;  and  it 
is  due  to  the  investigations  of  Mr.  Nichols  that  we  may  now  for  the 
first  time  formulate  certain  opinions  regarding  the  beginnings  of  porce- 
lain, which  are  grounded  on  matter-of-fact  observation,  and  not  on 
a more  or  less  arbitrary  interpretation  of  texts.  Therefore  the  question 
may  first  be  discussed  from  an  archeological  viewpoint;  and  then  it 
remains  to  be  seen  whether,  with  the  result  thus  obtained,  Chinese 
traditions  may  not  be  better  and  more  profitably  understood. 

Before  attempting  to  determine  the  date  of  the  “Han”  porcelanous 
ware,  it  will  be  useful  to  raise  the  question  whether  there  is  now  a 
possibility  of  dating  the  first  manufacture  of  true  porcelain.  I shall 
not  insist  on  the  evidence  deduced  by  Bushell  and  Hobson  from  Chinese 
sources,  to  the  effect  that  porcelain  was  made  under  the  T'ang  dynasty 
(618-906)  as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century.  Refer- 
ence will  be  made  to  only  one  source  which  has  not  yet  been  enlisted 
for  the  study  of  the  question,  and  then  we  may  proceed  to  archaeological 
evidence. 

An  incontrovertible  proof  for  the  existence  of  porcelain  in  the 
seventh  century  is  contained  in  the  memorable  account  of  the  Buddhist 
pilgrim  I-tsing  (635-713),  who  visited  India  from  671  to  695.  In  dis- 
cussing the  utensils  to  be  utilized  by  the  monks  of  India,  I-tsing  speaks 
also  of  Indian  earthenware  vessels,  and  remarks,  “In  India,  there  was 
originally  neither  porcelain  {ts'e  ^)  nor  lacquer.  Porcelain,  if  glazed, 
is  no  doubt  clean.  Lacquered  articles  are  sometimes  brought  to  India 

95 


96 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


by  traders.”^  It  is  evident  beyond  cavil  that  I-tsing  understands 
the  word  ts'e  in  this  passage  in  the  sense  of  porcelain  with  which  he 
was  famihar  in  his  native  country.  He  could  most  assuredly  not  mean 
to  say  that  pottery  was  originally  unknown  in  India,  for  in  more  than 
one  case  he  himself  refers  to  Indian  pottery  or  earthenware  {wa  S), 
which  could  not  escape  the  attention  of  a keen  observer  like  him. 
He  expressly  avails  himself  of  the  word  ts'e  in  this  passage,  advisedly 
in  contradistinction  to  the  word  wa  used  previously,  and  connects  it 
with  another  characteristic  product  through  which  China  then  became 
widely  known, — lacquer.  He  does  not  state  explicitly  that  porcelain, 
in  the  same  manner  as  lacquer- ware,  was  then  imported  from  China 
into  India;  but  this  fact  may  be  inferred  from  the  statement  made  in 
the  beginning  of  Chapter  VI,  that  “earthenware  and  porcelain  {wa  ts'e 
are  used  for  the  clean  jar”  (that  is,  the  jar  containing  the  water 
for  drinking-pxuposes).^  This  passage  is  sufficient  evidence  for  the 
fact  that  porcelain  was  then  found  in  India;  and  also  his  statement 
that  porcelain  did  not  originally  exist  in  India  seems  to  imply  that  it 
occurred  there  at  the  time  of  the  author’s  visit.  He  does  not  speak 
of  porcelain  as  a new,  but  as  a familiar,  production;  and  he  must 
certainly  have  seen  it  in  China  before  the  year  671,  the  date  of  his 
departure  for  India.  Judging  from  I-tsing’s  memoirs,  porcelain,  accord- 
ingly, must  have  existed  in  China  during  the  latter  half  of  the  seventh 
century.  At  the  same  time,  it  was  exported  into  India;  and  this 
harmonizes  with  the  observation  made  in  the  T'ao  shuo,  that  porcelain 
bowls  were  widely  distributed  abroad  from  the  time  of  the  T'ang 
dynasty  (618-906).® 

The  testimony  of  the  Arabic  merchant  Soleyman,  who  in  851  wrote 
his  “Chain  of  Chronicles,”  must  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  most 
weighty  to  prove  the  existence  in  China  of  true  porcelain  in  the 
age  of  the  T'ang,  during  the  ninth  century.  In  the  translation  of 


1 J.  Takakusu,  a Record  of  the  Buddhist  Religion  as  practised  in  India  by 
I-tsing,  p.  36  (Oxford,  1896);  Japanese  edition  of  the  text,  Vol.  I,  p.  17  a. 

^ L.C.,  p.  27:  text,  Vol.  I,  p.  12  a. 

* T'ao  shuo,  Ch.  5,  p.  2 b (edition  with  movable  types,  published  1913):  S.  W. 
Bushell,  Description  of  Chinese  Pottery  and  Porcelain,  p.  104. — According  to 
W.  Crooke  (Natives  of  Northern  India,  p.  136,  London,  1907),  common  clay  pots, 
owing  to  their  perishable  character,  are  little  valued  in  India,  “and  caste  prejudices 
prevent  the  use  of  the  finer  kinds  of  pottery.  Hence  no  artistic  industry  like  that 
of  china  has  flourished  in  India,  although  kaolin  and  other  suitable  kinds  of  clay  are 
in  some  places  abundant.”  We  have  a formal  judgment  on  Indian  pottery  from 
the  Buddhist  monk  Yuan  Ying,  who  in  his  Yi  ts'ie  king  yin  i (Ch.  18,  p.  7;  see  p.  115), 
written  about  a.d.  649,  remarks  that  the  state  of  culture  is  so  low  in  the  Western 
Regions  that  finer  pottery  cannot  be  made  there,  and  that  only  unbumt  bricks 
and  vessels  fired  without  glaze  are  turned  out. 


Historical  Observations  and  Conclusions  97 

M.  Reinaud/  he  reports  that  “there  is  in  China  a very  fine  clay 
from  which  are  made  vases  having  the  transparency  of  glass  bottles; 
water  in  these  vases  is  visible  through  them,  and  yet  they  are  made 
of  clay. 

The  presence  of  china  in  the  India  of  the  seventh  century,  and  the 
acquaintance  of  the  Arabs  with  transparent  porcelain  in  the  ninth 
century,  based  on  literary  sources,  naturally  raise  the  question  whether 
this  documentary  evidence  is  corroborated  by  any  archagological  facts. 
Such  have  heretofore  been  lacking;  but  an  important  discovery  due  to 
the  excavations  of  F.  Sarre  and  E.  Herzfeld  in  the  ruins  of  Samarra, 
the  former  residence  of  the  Caliphs,  is  fortunately  apt  to  settle  satis- 
factorily this  much-disputed  question.  The  report  of  these  remarkable 
finds  has  recently  been  published.*  According  to  F.  Sarre,  who  care- 
fully figures  and  describes  these  objects,  they  belong  to  a period  which 
is  well  determined  by  the  years  a.d.  838  and  883.  The  ceramic  speci- 
mens exhumed  in  Samarra  fall  into  two  classes, — those  imported  from 
eastern  Asia,  and  those  potted  locally  for  home-consumption.  Among 
the  former  we  are  confronted  with  a material  which  in  general  must  be 
designated  as  stoneware,  but  which,  to  use  the  words  of  Sarre,  partially 
approaches  porcelain  to  such  a high  degree  that  it  may  straightway  be 
styled  “porcelain.”  In  the  latter  case,  the  body  of  the  vessels  cannot 
be  scratched  by  steel,  is  almost  white,  transparent  in  thin  places,  the 
shards  being  dense,  and  hard  like  shell.  The  smooth  and  brilliant 
glaze  is  evenly  applied,  and  so  closely  linked  with  the  body  that  both 
can  but  have  been  fired  simultaneously, — characteristic  qualities  of 
genuine  East-Asiatic  porcelain.  Besides  fragments  of  more  or  less 
coarse  and  shallow  bowls,  whose  low  rim  around  the  bottom  is  ground 
off,  those  of  finer  ware  have  also  come  to  light;  thus,  for  instance,  a 
fragmentary  oval  cup  decorated  with  a fish  in  relief,  surrounded  by 
wave  designs  and  birds  on  the  wing.  Judging  from  the  author’s 
description  and  the  very  excellent  illustrations,  there  is  no  room  for 

^ Relation  des  voyages  faits  par  les  Arabes  et  les  Persans  dans  I’lnde  et  ^ la 
Chine,  Vol.  I,  p.  34. 

’ The  report  of  Soleyman  is  in  full  accord  with  the  Chinese  notices  of  T'ang 
pottery.  In  the  beginning  of  the  T'ang  dynasty  (618),  vases  of  a white  clay,  with 
thin  body  of  white  and  brilliant  color,  were  made  by  a potter  of  the  name  T'ao, 
in  the  village  Chung-siu,  belonging  to  King-te-chen;  they  were  styled  “imitation 
jade  utensils,”  and  sent  as  tribute  to  the  Court.  Similar  vessels  were  turned  out 
simultaneously  by  Ho  Chung-ch'u  from  the  village  Tung-shan  {King  te  chen  t'ao 
lu,  Ch.  5,  p.  I b;  JULiEN,  Histoire,  pp.  81,  82).  It  is  notable  that  both  potters 
were  rural  residents,  and  that  their  work  possessed  sufficient  quality  to  earn  imperial 
approbation. 

® F.  Sarre,  Die  Kleinfunde  von  Samarra  und  ihre  Ergebnisse  fur  das  islamische 
Kunstgewerbe  des  9.  Jahrhunderts  {Der  Islam,  Vol.  V,  1914,  pp.  180-195,  4 plates). 


98 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


doubt  that  the  piece  in  question  is  of  real,  white  porcelain,  and  that  it 
affords  an  example  of  the  hitherto  lost  porcelain  of  the  T'ang  period. 
T'ang  porcelain  is  thus  raised  into  the  rank  of  plain  fact.  Soleyman’s 
testimony  proves  true. 

The  date  of  this  specimen  is  indubitable,  and  meets  a welcome 
confirmation  from  two  green  and  white  glazed  dishes  of  pottery^  secured 
in  the  same  locality.  Without  having  any  clew  to  their  provenience, 
the  writer,  who  through  his  researches  in  China  is  somewhat  familiar 
with  this  and  similar  ware,  would  not  hesitate  for  a moment  to  diagnose 
them  as  Chinese  productions  of  the  epoch  of  the  T’ang.  Mr.  Sarre  is 
perfectly  correct  in  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  pieces  of  identical 
technique  are  preserved  in  the  Imperial  Treasury  of  Nara  in  Japan, 
and  that  T'ang  clay  statuettes  are  formed  of  the  same  material.  An- 
other discovery  of  no  less  importance,  for  which  we  are  indebted  to 
Mr.  Sarre’s  energy,  is  a group  of  celadon-like  stoneware,  one  of  which, 
bearing  the  design  of  a fish  scratched  in  under  the  glaze,  is  reproduced 
in  his  report.  The  facts  brought  out  by  Mr.  Sarre’s  researches  are  of 
such  far-reaching  consequence,  that  he  is  entitled  to  a just  claim  to  oxrr 
lasting  gratitude.  Above  all,  he  has  succeeded  in  safely  establishing 
the  fundamental  fact  that  porcelain  was  made  in  China  under  the 
T'ang;  and  that  Chinese  porcelain,  as  well  as  non-porcelanous  pottery, 
was  exported  in  the  ninth  century  into  the  Empire  of  the  Caliphs. 
These  conclusions  embolden  us  and  justify  us  in  regarding  the  word 
ts'e,  whenever  it  appears  in  T'ang  documents,  as  conveying  the  notion 
of  true  porcelain,  and  in  giving  full  credence  to  the  account  of  I-tsing, 
that  India  possessed  Chinese  porcelain  during  the  seventh  century.^ 
Consequently  it  is  at  some  earlier  date  that  the  beginnings  of  porce- 
lain — those  initiatory  and  preparatory  steps  finally  leading  up  to  the 
perfection  of  the  ware  — must  be  sought  for.  Porcelain  has  been 
discovered  in  Turkistan  by  Sir  Aurel  Stein.® 

Our  previous  knowledge  of  references  to  T'ang  porcelain  was  chiefly 
based  on  the  two  modern  works,  the  King  te  chen  t'ao  lu  (first  edition, 
1815)  and  the  T'ao  shuo  (1774).  It  remains  to  be  ascertained,  however, 
from  the  contemporaneous  records  of  the  T'ang,  whether  these  extracts 


1 On  Plate  II  in  the  article  referred  to. 

^ As  shown  by  I-tsing,  a clear  distinction  between  common  pottery  and  porce- 
lain is  made  in  T'ang  literature.  This  is  further  evidenced  by  the  frequent  occur- 
rence of  the  compound  ts'e  wa  (“porcelain  and  stoneware”),  for  instance,  in 

the  Yu  yang  tsa  tsu  (Ch.  ii,  p.  7 b;  ed.  of  Pai  hai)  and  in  the  Ta  T'ang  sin  yii 
WfWl  (Ch.  13,  p.  9;  ed.  of  T'ang  Sung  ts'ung  shu). 

^Ancient  Khotan,  Vol.  I,  pp.  461,  464  (see  also  Hobson,  Chinese  Pottery  and 
Porcelain,  Vol.  I,  p.  149).  It  would  be  desirable  that  analyses  be  made  and  pub- 
lished of  Sarre’s  and  Stein’s  porcelains. 


Historical  Observations  and  Conclusions 


99 


are  reliable  and  correctly  reproduced.  In  the  geographical  chapters 
of  the  T'ang  Annals  we  find  under  each  locality  an  enumeration  of  the 
taxes  in  kind  annually  sent  to  the  Court,  and  the  T'ai  p'ing  huan  yii  ki 
of  Yo  Shi  gives  a still  more  extensive  list  of  the  products  of  the  empire 
during  that  period.  The  following  localities  are  known  as  having 
produced  porcelain  under  the  T'ang; — 

1.  Hing  chou  ^'I'l  (modem  Shun-te  fu  in  Chi-li)  turned  out  white 

porcelain  vessels  {T'ang  shu,  Ch.  39,  p.  6;  and  T'ai  p'ing  huan 

yii  ki,  Ch.  59,  p.  5),  which  were  accepted  as  taxes. 

2.  Ting  chou  S il'H  in  Chi-li  {T'ai  p'ing  huan  yii  ki,  Ch.  62,  p.  4 b); 
the  T'ang  Annals  do  not  mention  porcelain  among  its  products. 

3.  Yu  chou  ® ilii  (modem  Yung-p'ing  fu  in  Chi-li),  according  to 
T'ai  p'ing  huan  yii  ki,  Ch.  69,  p.  6. 

4.  Jao  chou  jl'H  in  Kiang-si  {T'ai  p'ing  huan  yii  ki,  Ch.  107, 
P-  3)- 

5.  Yiie  chou  ^ il'M  (modem  Shao-hing  fu  in  Che-kiang),  according 
to  T'ang  shu  (Ch.  41,  p.  4 b)  and  T'ai  p'ing  huan  yii  ki  (Ch.  96,  p.  5). 

6.  Ho-nan  fu  (according  to  T'ang  leu  tien,  Ch.  3,  p.  4 b,  ed.  of  Kuang 
ya  shu  kii,  1895;  and  T'ai  p'ing  huan  yii  ki,  Ch.  3,  p.  8b). 

As  may  readily  be  seen  from  Julien’s  translation  (pp.  28  and  6), 
only  two  of  these  localities  (Nos.  i and  5)  are  mentioned  in  the  King 
te  chen  t'ao  lu  as  having  produced  porcelain  under  the  T'ang  (not,  how- 
ever, Nos.  2-4) ; while  several  others  are  so  designated,  which  cannot  be 
verified  from  coeval  documents.^ 

As  established  by  archaeological  evidence,  porcelain  was  an  accom- 
plished fact  rmder  the  T'ang  (618-906) ; and  there  is  further  good  reason 
to  assume  that  it  existed  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sixth  century.^  It  is 
futile,  of  course,  to  look  for  an  inventor  of  porcelain,  as  has  been  done 
by  E.  ZiMMERMANN.®  This  invention  of  an  inventor  of  porcelain  is  a 
romance,  not  history.  Chinese  records  know  absolutely  nothing  about 
such  an  inventor,  simply  for  the  reason  that  he  never  existed.  Porce- 
lain is  not  an  “invention,”  that  can  be  attributed  to  the  efforts  of  an 


1 In  the  writer’s  forthcoming  second  part  of  Chinese  Clay  Figures  will  be  found 
a chapter  on  T'ang  pottery. 

^ Bushell,  Description  of  Chinese  Pottery,  p.  xii;  Hobson,  Chinese  Pottery 
and  Porcelain,  Vol.  I,  p.  147.  In  1844,  during  the  negotiations  preceding  the 
Franco-Chinese  Treaty,  one  of  the  Chinese  envoys,  Chao  Chang-li,  well  acquainted 
with  the  antiquities  of  his  country,  assured  N.  Rondot  that  the  manufacture  of 
porcelain  could  be  traced  back  only  as  far  as  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century  (see 
Journal  China  Branch  Roy.  Soc.,  Vol.  XXXII,  1897-98,  p.  73). 

® Orientalisches  Archiv,  Vol.  II,  1911,  pp.  30-34:  and  Chinesisches  Porzellan, 
p.  24.  I strictly  concur  with  Hobson  (/.  c.,  Vol.  I,  p.  145)  in  his  criticism  of  Zim- 
mermann’s  hypothesis. 


lOO 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


individual;  but  it  was  a slow  and  gradual  process  of  finding,  groping, 
and  experimenting,  the  outcome  of  the  united  exertions  of  several  cen- 
turies and  generations.  We  clearly  observe  a rising  development  of 
porcelain  from  the  T'ang  to  the  Sung,  Yuan,  and  Ming  periods,  till  the 
high  perfection  of  the  ware  culminates  in  the  K'ang-hi  era.  It  is  there- 
fore logical  to  assume  that  preceding  the  age  of  the  Sui  (590-617)  there 
was  a primitive  stage  of  development  which  ultimately  resulted  in  the 
T'ang  porcelain.  This  primeval  porcelanous  product  was  hitherto 
unknown,  but,  as  demonstrated  by  the  researches  of  Mr.  Nichols,  its 
existence  is  now  proved  in  the  nine  vessels  figured  on  Plates  I and  III-X, 
with  analogous  specimens  in  the  Boston  Fine  Arts  Museum,  the  Freer 
collection,  and  the  British  Museum.  The  tentative  attributions 
“T'ang”  and  “Sung”  (p.  82)  were  based  only  on  isolated  cases,  and 
ventured  as  personal  impressions;  they  were  not  grounded  on  the  fact 
of  analytic  study.  The  Han  tradition  of  ceramic  forms  had  completely 
died  out  under  the  T'ang  and  Sung,  to  give  way  to  more  graceful  and 
pleasing  shapes  partially  conceived  under  Iranian  and  Indian  influences. 
As  has  been  shown,  the  objects  in  question  decidedly  breathe  the  spirit 
of  Han  art  in  forms  and  decorative  motives.  There  is  good  circumstan- 
tial evidence  in  the  case  of  the  jug  on  Plate  I,  discovered  in  the  same 
grave  with  a Han  cast-iron  stove,  and  in  that  of  the  pan-liang  coins  of 
the  Boston  jar.  Nevertheless  I am  not  convinced  that  we  are  entitled 
to  assign  these  vessels  to  the  Later  Han  dynasty  within  its  strict  chrono- 
logical boundaries  (a.d.  25-220),  as  the  predominant  bulk  of  the  kiln- 
products  turned  out  under  the  Han  was  common  glazed  and  unglazed 
pottery  {wa  Moreover,  the  new  term  ts'e  applied  to  porce- 

lanous ware,  does  not  yet  occur  in  the  contemporaneous  records  of  the 
Han,  at  least  such  an  occurrence  has  not  yet  been  proved  (see  p.  102); 
and  this  is  the  main  reason  which  prompts  me  to  the  opinion  that  the 
pottery  in  question  was  manufactured  in  post-Han  times,  say,  roughly, 
under  the  earlier  Wei  (22C5-264),  or  toward  the  middle  or  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  third  century  a.d.* *  From  a purely  philological  point  of  view, 

1 This  is  the  term  employed  for  the  burial  pottery  of  the  period  in  the  Han 
Annals  {Hou  Han  shu,  Ch.  16,  p.  3).  It  is  therefore  out  of  the  question  that  the 
new  term  ts'e,  as  stated  by  Hobson  (1.  c.,  Vol.  I,  p.  141,  note),  should  refer  to  the 
glazed  pottery  of  the  Han.  Credit  must  be  given  also  to  the  Chinese  for  their 
correct  feeling  for  their  own  language  and  their  own  antiquities:  the  present-day 
Chinese  style  the  glazed  Han  pottery  liu-li  wa  (accordingly,  with  the  same  term 
as  employed  in  the  Han  Annals),  while  the  term  Han  ts'e  is  applied  to  the  porce- 
lanous ware  here  described.  In  this  case,  Chinese  feeling  signifies  a hundred  times 
more  than  all  the  hair-splitting  and  pedantic  subtleties  of  European  sinologues. 

* It  is  curious  that  this  result  agrees  with  the  opinion  of  Palladius  (Chinese- 
Russian  Dictionary,  Vol.  II,  p.  343),  who  held  that  the  output  of  porcelain  took 
its  beginning  from  the  Tsin  dynasty  (263-420). 


Historical  Observations  and  Conclusions 


lOI 


the  term  Han  ts'e,  applied  to  this  pottery  by  Mr.  Yen,  is  not  justified. 
From  the  standpoint  of  the  archaeologist,  however,  it  is  perfectly  correct; 
for  this  pottery,  as  recognized  by  Mr.  Yen  with  just  instinct  or  intuition, 
combines  in  itself  two  characteristic  features, — the  style  of  Han  art, 
and  the  technical  character  of  porcelanous  ware.  It  is  justifiable  to 
regard  it  as  a very  early  production,  or  even  as  one  of  the  earliest,  of 
the  ware  styled  ts'e.  We  might  therefore  say  that  porcelain  ran  through 
its  experimental  stages  for  at  least  three  centuries;  and  it  seems  to  me  a 
reasonable  conclusion  that  a development  of  such  a length  of  time  was 
required  until  mature  and  highly  finished  products  should  ultimately 
result. 

It  is  possible  also  to  make  a plausible  guess  at  the  kiln,  where  the 
nine  vessels  were  produced.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  jug  in  Plate  I 
was  fotmd  in  a grave  near  the  village  Ma-kia-chai,  5 li  north  of  the 
town  of  Hien-yang  ^ G&,  the  ancient  capital  of  the  Ts'in,  belonging  to 
the  prefecture  of  Si-ngan.  The  “Records  of  the  Potteries  of  King-te-chen” 
inform  us  that  “under  the  earlier  Wei  dynasty  (220-264)  vases  were 
turned  out  at  Kuan-chung  BS  corresponding  to  Hien-yang  and 
other  places  of  the  prefecture  of  Si-ngan,  and  that  the  output  of  this 
kiln  was  intended  for  the  use  of  the  Court,  and  offered  to  the  Emperor.”  ^ 
Thus  it  is  not  impossible  that  our  ware  was  actually  made  in  the  district 
of  Hien-yang,  or,  taking  the  wider  area,  in  the  prefecture  of  Si-ngan. 
If  the  passage  quoted  should  really  be  derived  from  an  ancient  text, 
which  I am  not  in  a position  to  prove,  it  would  have  another  significance, 
in  that  it  would  represent  the  earliest  allusion  to  pottery  deemed  worthy 
of  being  sent  to  the  palace.  Neither  in  times  of  antiquity  nor  under 
the  Han  do  we  hear  of  any  tribute  pottery.  In  the  famous  Tribute 


' King  te  chen  t'ao  lu  (edition  of  1891),  Ch.  7,  p.  i b.  Julien  (Histoire  et  fabri- 
cation de  la  porcelaine  chinoise,  p.  4),  in  his  translation  of  these  passages,  speaks  in 
both  cases  of  “porcelain;”  but  this  is  not  warranted  by  the  Chinese  text,  which 
avails  itself  of  the  general  term  t'ao  (“pottery”);  but  ts'e  belonged  to  the  class  of 
t'ao.  Hobson  (Chinese  Pottery  and  Porcelain,  Vol.  I,  p.  143)  complains  of  Julien 
and  Bushell  having  been  indiscriminate  in  the  use  of  the  term  “porcelain”  in  their 
translations  from  the  Chinese.  But  how  about  Legge,  who  speaks  of  porcelain 
in  the  era  of  the  Shi  king?  In  his  translation  of  this  work,  we  read  in  two  passages 
(pp.  346  and  502)  of  a “porcelain  whistle,”  which  is  entered  even  in  the  index. 
Fortunately  this  musical  instrument  of  porcelain  has  escaped  the  students  and 
collectors  of  Chinese  ceramics;  otherwise  we  should  probably  meet  it  in  one  or 
another  collection,  since  the  collector  usually  gets  what  he  wants  or  solicits.  What 
is  meant  in  the  passage  of  the  Shi  king  is  the  instrument  htian  a pipe  made  of 
baked  clay,  of  the  size  of  a fowl’s  egg,  and  perforated  by  six  apertures.  Again,  we 
read  of  “porcelain  drums”  in  a translation  of  De  Groot  (Religious  System  of  China, 
Vol.  VI,  p.  977)  from  a text  of  the  Tu  tuan  by  Ts'ai  Yung  (133-192),  relative  to 
conditions  of  the  Chou  period.  The  text  has  t'u  hu  ^ which  means  “earthen 
drums.” 


102 


Beginnings  oe  Porcelain 


of  Yu  {Yu  kung),  forming  a section  of  the  Shu  king,  pottery  is  conspicu- 
ously absent.  In  pre-Han  and  Han  times  it  had  not  yet  reached  such 
a state  of  perfection  that  it  would  have  been  brought  to  the  immediate 
attention  of  the  sovereign,  or  was  eligible  to  take  a place  in  the  im- 
perial chambers.  It  is  conceivable  that  pottery  of  the  class  of  our 
porcelanous  ware  was  entitled  to  admission  to  Court,  and  answers  to 
the  tribute  ware  produced  at  Kuan-chung. 

The  origin  of  this  mysterious  and  much-discussed  term  ts'e  has  been 
referred  to  the  Han  period  by  several  European  authors,  but  nobody 
has  yet  furnished  any  actual  proof  that  the  word  really  occurs  in  con- 
temporaneous records  of  that  age.  Even  Bushelli  merely  states, 
“We  know  that  the  word  ts'e,  which  means  porcelain  in  the  present 
day,  first  came  into  use  during  the  Han  dynasty,  and  Mr.  Hippisley 
takes  this  coining  of  a new  word  to  designate  the  productions  of  that 
age  to  be  a strong  argument  in  favor  of  the  early  date.  Others,  more 
sceptical,  before  reaching  any  decision,  ask  to  be  shown  actual  speci- 
mens of  translucent  body  that  can  be  certainly  referred  to  the  period.” 
Seven  years  later,  Bushell  became  more  confident  and  positive  in  his 
assertion  of  the  origin  of  porcelain  under  the  Han.  In  his  work  “Chi- 
nese Art,”^  an  assurance  to  this  effect  is  given  in  three  passages.  The 
word  and  character  ts'e,  according  to  him,  is  first  found  in  books  of 
the  Han  dynasty.  Again  he  asserts  that  the  Chinese  attribute  the 
invention  to  the  Han  dynasty,  when  a new  character  ts'e  was  coined  to 
designate,  presumably,  a new  substance;*  and  that  “still  we  may 
reasonably  accept  the  conclusion  of  the  best  native  scholarship  that 
porcelain  was  first  made  in  the  Han  dynasty,  without  trying,  as  Stanislas 
Julien  has  tried  on  very  insufficient  grounds,  to  fix  the  precise  date  of 
its  invention.” 

The  only  piece  of  evidence  that  has  ever  been  produced  to  prove 
the  existence  of  the  term  ts'e  under  the  Han  is  the  citation  of  this  word 
in  the  glossary  Shuo  wen.  Sceptics  will  naturally  raise  the  question 


* Oriental  Ceramic  Art,  p.  20  (New  York,  1899). 

2 Vol.  II,  pp.  4,  17,  20. 

® The  fact  cited  by  Bushell  on  this  occasion  — that  “the  official  memoir  on 
‘Porcelain  Administration’  in  the  topography  of  Fou-liang  says  that,  according 
to  local  tradition,  the  ceramic  works  at  Sin-p'ing  (an  old  name  of  Fou-liang)  were 
founded  in  the  time  of  the  Han  dynasty,  and  had  been  in  constant  operation  ever 
since’’ — is  not  conclusive  for  a plea  on  behalf  of  porcelain  at  the  time  of  the  Han. 
That  tradition,  if  correct,  merely  goes  to  show  that  kilns  for  the  manufacture  of 
pottery  were  established  in  that  locality  under  the  Han,  while  it  implies  nothing 
definite  as  to  the  specific  character  of  this  pottery.  The  fact  that  Fou-liang  turned 
out  porcelain  at  a later  period  does  not  allow  of  the  inference  that  what  was  pro- 
duced there  in  the  era  of  the  Han  likewise  was  porcelain. 


Historical  Observations  and  Conclusions  103 

whether  the  passage  was  actually  contained  in  the  original  edition  of 
the  work  (a.d.  ioo),  or  whether  it  has  been  interpolated  in  the  numerous 
subsequent  re-editionsd  The  decision  of  this  question  may  be  left  to 
a competent  sinologue.  It  means  little  for  my  purposes,  as  long  as  no 
instances  of  the  word  are  pointed  out  in  authentic  books,  which  may 
be  regarded  as  contemporaneous  documents  of  the  Han  period.  This 
much  may  be  said,  that  the  definition  given  in  the  Shuo  wen  has  not 
been  adequately  explained.  It  has  been  asserted  the  definition  should 
mean  that  ts'e  is  “pottery  and  nothing  more.”^  It  means,  however, 
“Ts'e  belongs  to  the  category  of  pottery,”  or  “is  a kind  of  pottery.” 
In  the  definitions  of  the  Shuo  wen,  the  word  to  be  explained  is  defined 
by  a more  general  word  denoting  the  wider  category.  It  cannot  there- 
fore be  deduced  from  that  gloss  that  ts'e  in  ancient  times  did  not  refer 
to  porcelain,  for  porcelain  certainly  is  a variety  of  pottery.  In  regard 
to  the  specific  character  of  ts'e,  the  definition  of  the  Shuo  wen  is  utterly 
inconclusive.  Holding  in  abeyance  the  question  as  to  the  time  when 
the  term  ts'e  sprang  into  existence,  and  leaving  aside  all  subtleties,  it 
remains  for  plain  common  sense  to  say  that  a new  term  refers  to  a new 
matter,  and  that  ts'e  as  a new  ceramic  term  must  have  denoted  a novel 
production  achieved  in  the  ceramic  field.  Such  was  the  porcelanous 
ware  as  here  described;  and  if,  from  the  Sui  and  T'ang  periods  onward, 
the  word  ts'e  was  applied  to  true  porcelain,  it  is  self-evident  that  prior 
to  that  time  it  was  attached  to  porcelanous  ware,  the  forerunner  of 
porcelain.  The  word  ts'e  did  not  plainly  describe  any  pottery,  but 
porcelanous  pottery  specifically. 

It  is  known  that  the  character  ts'e  M is  now  employed  also  in  place 
of  ts'e  From  this  change  of  characters  F.  Hirth^  believed  he  was 
justified  in  concluding  that  the  new  form,  linked  with  the  classifier 
‘stone’  Tf,  indicates  a substitute  of  material;  while  in  the  older  form, 
combined  with  the  classifier  ‘ clay  ’ S,  the  nature  of  earthenware  should 
be  accentuated.  This  argumentation  is  unwarranted,  and,  as  will  be 
seen,  does  not  answer  the  facts.  Likewise  the  information  given  on 
this  point  in  the  “Catalogue  of  Potteries  published  by  the  Japan 
Society”  (p.  56,  New  York,  1914)  is  misleading.  Here  it  is  asserted 
that  from  the  fact  that  the  city  Ts'e-chou  produced  porcelain,  and  that 
the  word  ts'e  in  the  name  of  the  city  is  phonetically  identical  with  that 
of  the  word  meaning  “stoneware”  or  “porcelain,”  a certain  confusion  in 

1 Neither  the  Erh  ya  nor  the  Kuang  ya  contains  the  word;  but  also  this  proves 
nothing,  as  none  of  the  ancient  dictionaries  is  complete,  and  they  surely  lack  numer- 
ous words  which  are  found  in  literature. 

^ F.  Hirth,  Ancient  Chinese  Porcelain,  p.  130. 

^ Ancient  Chinese  Porcelain,  p.  130,  note  3. 


104 


Beginnings  oe  Porcelain 


the  use  of  the  word  has  arisen;  “but  there  is  no  such  confusion  in  the 
mind  of  the  Chinese  scholar;  the  purist  never  uses  it;  and  all  arguments 
as  to  the  date  of  the  origin  of  porcelain  which  have  been  based  on  the 
use  of  this  word  are  valueless.”  All  these  statements  are  erroneous. 
No  one  has  ever  based  any  arguments  on  the  use  of  this  word  as  to  the 
date  of  porcelain.  In  fact,  the  word  has  no  concern  whatever  with  the 
origin  of  porcelain.  The  chief  facts  in  the  case  could  already  be  gleaned 
from  Julien’s  “Histoire”  (p.  29).  There  is,  first  of  all,  a city  by  the 
name  Ts’e-chou  mm,  which  anciently  depended  on  the  prefectture  of 
Chang-te  in  the  province  of  Ho-nan,  but  which  is  now  assigned  to  the 
prefecture  of  Kuang-p'ing  in  the  province  of  Chi-li.  The  city  had 
formerly  various  other  names.  The  present  name  Ts’e  m was  con- 
ferred on  it  in  the  year  590,  at  the  time  of  the  Sui  dynasty.  Near  the 
boimdary  of  the  district  rose  the  Loadstone  Mountain  (Ts'e  shan  ^8  Uj) 
producing  loadstone  (is'e  shi  m ^),  whence  the  district  and  town 
received  their  name.^  At  the  time  of  the  T'ang  dynasty  (618-906), 
the  district  produced  nothing  but  loadstone  and  magnets  made  from 
it;  it  did  not  produce  pottery  of  any  kind.* *  Only  from  under  the  Sung 
(960-1278)  did  the  locality  in  question  embark  on  the  manufacture  of 
a kind  of  white  porcelain,  the  choice  specimens  of  which  resembled  the 
Ting  ware.  This  particular  kind  of  porcelain,  because  it  originated 
from  the  locality  of  Ts'e,  was  styled  “vessels  of  Ts'e”  {Ts'e  k'i  m ^). 
The  word  ts'e  in  this  case,  accordingly,  denotes  nothing  but  the  place 
of  provenience.  “At  present,”  the  author  of  the  “Records  of  the 
Potteries  of  King-te-chen ” adds,  “owing  to  a very  common  error, 
porcelain  vases  are  generally  designated  by  the  term  ts'e  k'i  ^ 
people  employing  this  term  are  doubtless  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  it 
applies  in  particular  only  to  the  porcelain  of  the  city  of  Ts'e.”  The 
fact  remains  that  under  the  Manchu  dynasty,  and  at  present,  porcelain 
is  invariably  termed  ^ and  m,  the  latter  character  being  more  fre- 
quently employed.*  True  it  is,  that  K'ang-hi’s  Dictionary  does  not 

* T'ai  p'ing  kuan  yu  ki,  Ch.  56,  p.  10  b.  The  Pen  ts'ao  kang  mu  extols  the 
loadstone  of  this  locality  as  excellent  (F.  de  M^ly,  Lapidaires  chinois,  p.  106), 
and  loadstone  was  supplied  from  there  as  tribute  to  the  Court  {Ta  Ts'ing  i t'ung 
chi,  Ch.  31,  p.  12). 

’ The  silence  of  the  T'ai  p'ing  kuan  yu  ki  and  the  T'ang  Annals  in  this  respect  is 
conclusive,  as  the  localities  producing  porcelanous  ware  at  that  time  are  expressly 
named  (see  above,  p.  99).  Hobson  (Chinese  Pottery  and  Porcelain,  Vol.  I,  p.  loi) 
also  arrives  at  the  result  that  there  is  no  information  on  the  subject  of  Ts'e-chou 
factories  earlier  than  the  Sung  dynasty,  when  they  enjoyed  a high  reputation. 

* Even  in  the  T'ang  Annals  the  term  ts'e  k'i  appears,  although  we  are  not 

in  a position  to  state  that  it  was  thus  written  in  the  original  edition:  the  district 
Ku-lu  ^ ^ in  Hing-chou  (now  prefecture  of  Shun-te  in  Chi-li  Province)  sent  porce- 
lain vessels  as  tribute  in  the  year  742  (T'ang  shu,  Ch.  39,  p.  6);  and  the  fact  that 


Historical  Observations  and  Conclusions  105 

credit  it  with  the  meaning  of  “porcelain,”  but  attributes  to  it  only  the 
proper  significance,  “loadstone.”  This,  however,  means  nothing. 
Chinese  standard  works,  like  the  great  cyclopaedia  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'eng 
and  others,  also  the  Japanese,  employ  this  character  throughout  in  the 
sense  of  “porcelain,”  so  that  there  is  no  longer  the  question  of  confusion. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  a perfectly  legitimate  usage,  even  sanctioned  by 
the  English  and  Chinese  Standard  Dictionary  issued  by  the  Shanghai 
Commercial  Press;  and  for  this  reason  our  own  dictionaries,  like  those 
of  Palladius,  Giles,  and  Couvreur,  are  justified  in  assigning  the  meaning 
“porcelain”  also  to  the  character  ts'e  fiSl.  This  was  the  outcome  of  a 
natural  development  of  the  language,  which  no  alleged  purism  can  sweep. 
The  original  term  “porcelain  of  Ts'e”  was  simply  amplified  into  the 
wider  notion  of  porcelain  in  general,  because  the  word  ts'e  employed 
in  the  name  of  the  city  bearing  that  name,  and  the  word  ts'e  for 
“porcelain,”  though  physically  different  words,  phonetically  are  ho- 
mophonous.^  This  history  of  the  subject  clearly  shows  that  Hirth’s 
theory  is  untenable  and  should  be  discarded.  The  new  word  ts'e 
in  the  sense  of  “porcelain,”  has  no  organic  and  historical  connection 
whatever  with  the  older  word  for  “ porcelain  ” ts'e  but  is  an  independ- 
ent side-issue  of  purely  incidental  character.  The  alleged  evolution 
from  earthenware  to  stony  material  cannot  be  read  from  the  formation 
of  these  characters,  as  they  have  nothing  in  common,  and  move  along 
separate  fines.  This  conclusion  settles  also  the  general  speculation* 
to  the  effect  that  the  word  ts'e  in  its  origin  should  have  meant  nothing 
but  common  earthenware,  and  that  gradual  improvement  of  the  ware 
resulted  in  changes  of  meaning  and  writing.  We  now  recognize  that 
the  genuine  character  for  ts'e  ^ has  not  been  subject  to  any  alterations, 
and  that  it  was  in  the  beginning  exactly  the  same  as  it  is  at  present.  It 
is  therefore  infinitely  more  probable  that  this  speculation  regarding 
substitutes  of  material  resulting  in  altered  significations  of  the  word  is 
imaginary  in  its  entire  range;  that  is  to  say,  the  newly  coined  word  ts'e, 
from  the  days  of  its  childhood,  denoted  not  simply  “earthenware,” 


the  question  is  here  of  porcelain  is  confirmed  by  the  King  te  chen  t'ao  lu  (Julien, 
Histoire,  p.  28).'-^  In  other  passages  of  the  T'ang  Annals  we  meet  the  regular  mode 
of  writing  for  instance,  in  Ch.  41,  p.  4 b,  where  the  porcelain  of  Hui-ki  in 

Yue-chou  (the  present  province  of  Che-kiang)  is  mentioned.  In  the  T'ai  p'ing 
huan  yu  ki  only  the  form  ^ is  employed.  “Porcelain”  is  expressed  by  in  the 
Liao  shi  (Ch.  104,  p.  2)  and  Yiian  ski  (Ch.  88,  p.  10  b). 

‘ The  mental  process  underlying  this  transformation  may  be  compared  with 
the  extension  of  our  word  “china”  to  porcelains  made  in  any  countries  outside 
of  China. 

’ Hirth,  Ancient  Chinese  Porcelain,  p.  130  (repeated  in  his  Chinesische  Studien, 
p.  48). 


io6 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


but  a higher  grade  of  pottery  which  shared  characteristic  features  with 
true  porcelain. 

Another  problem  is  whether  the  kind  of  porcelain  manufactiured  at 
Ts'e-chou  bore  any  relation  to  the  mineral  ts'e.  The  term  ts'e 
as  is  well  known,  is  the  designation  of  the  magnet  or  loadstone;  but,  as 
admitted  by  the  Chinese,  it  denotes  also  another  mineral  which  is  suit- 
able for  the  making  of  pottery.  This  fact  is  brought  out  by  several 
ancient  stone  sculptures  in  the  Museum’s  collection,  in  the  votive 
inscriptions  of  which  it  is  stated  that  the  material  of  the  sculpture  is 
ts'e  shi  M ^ {“ts'e  stone”),  which,  however,  as  shown  by  a very  super- 
ficial examination,  is  not  loadstone.  The  “Records  of  the  Potteries 
of  King-te-chen” Mnform  us  that  “the  ts'e  stone  is  made  into  a 

paste  serviceable  for  pottery  vessels,  but  that  this  stone  is  not  identical 
with  the  magnet  attracting  iron  and  used  for  magnetic  needles;  further, 
it  is  a peculiar  and  distinct  kind  of  stone  of  white  color  and  of  bright 
and  smooth  appearance;  the  vessels  made  from  it  are  beautiful,  but  not 
delicate,  and  differ  from  porcelain  earth;  aside  from  Ts'e-chou,  they 
are  made  in  Hii-chou  #1  in  Ho-nan  Province.  It  is  accordingly  not 
magnetic  ore  which  entered  into  the  manufacture  of  Ts'e  porcelain,  but 
a mineral  of  a different  nature,  as  yet  undetermined,  apparently  not 
discovered  prior  to  the  age  of  the  Sung,  and  likewise  styled  ts'e?  This 
point  is  especially  mentioned  in  this  connection,  because  a supposition 
that  magnetic  ore  might  have  been  mixed  with  porcelain  glaze  would 
not  be  entirely  without  foundation.^ 

In  fact,  however,  we  have  no  account  of  loadstone  ever  haiung  been 
used  by  the  Chinese  in  the  making  of  pottery;  and  it  is  therefore 
impossible  to  assume  any  connection  between  the  two  words  ts'e, — 
the  one  denoting  “loadstone,”  the  other  “porcelain.”  As  the  written 


* King  te  chen  t'ao  lu,  Ch.  lo,  p.  12  b (new  edition,  1891). 

^Palladius  (Chinese-Russian  Dictionary,  Vol.  II,  p.  343)  states  under  this  word, 
“Magnet;  suitable  for  the  eyes;  employed  in  the  making  of  bowls  and  pillows; 
porcelain.” 

® According  to  Pliny  {Nat.  hist.,  xxxvi,  66,  § 192),  magnet-stone  was  added  to 
glass  during  the  process  of  making  the  latter,  because  it  was  eredited  with  the 
property  of  attracting  liquefied  glass  as  well  as  iron  (Mox,  ut  est  ingeniosa  sollertia, 
non  fuit  contenta  nitrum  miscuisse;  coeptus  addi  et  magnes  lapis,  quoniam  in  se 
liquorem  vitri  quoque  ut  ferrum  trahere  creditur).  The  correctness  of  this  report 
has  been  called  into  doubt.  The  Arabic  mineralogy  ascribed  to  Aristotle  has 
replaced  the  magnet-stone  by  the  stone  magnesia  as  being  added  to  glass  (J.  Ruska, 
Steinbuch  des  Aristoteles,  p.  171).  In  another  passage  {ihid.,  p.  129)  it  is  said  that 
glass  cannot  be  finished  without  the  stone  magnesia;  the  latter  denotes  manganese, 
which  serves  for  the  refinement  of  glass  fluxes.  Whether  Pliny  is  guilty  of  a con- 
fusion in  the  case,  or  whether  he  really  reproduces  a tradition  current  in  his  time, 
can  hardly  be  decided. 


Historical  Observations  and  Conclusions  107 

symbols  are  formed  by  means  of  different  phonetic  elements,  the  greater 
likelihood  is  that  also  the  two  words,  although  now  phonetically  identi- 
cal, are  traceable  to  different  origins.  The  history  of  the  word  ts'e  W. 
can  be  established  without  great  difficulty.  The  earliest  form  in 
which  it  was  written  is  ts'e  shi  ^ ^ (that  is,  “attractive  stone”);  in 
this  manner  we  find  it,  for  instance,  in  the  Annals  of  the  Former  Han 
Dynasty.^  The  character  consequently,  is  a secondary  formation 
based  on  a contraction  of  the  words  ts'e  and  shi,  the  latter  assuming 
the  position  of  classifier,  the  former  that  of  phonetic  element,  the 
original  significance  of  which  was  bound  gradually  to  disappear.  The 
word  for  “porcelain,”  however,  is  written  with  the  phonetic  element 
ts'e  which,  as  an  independent  word,  has  the  meaning  “second,  next 
in  order,  inferior,”  etc.  It  is  clear  that  in  composition  with  the  classifier 
‘clay’  {wa  H)  it  has  no  word-meaning  whatever,  but  has  merely  the 
function  of  a phonetic  element.  Thus  far  we  are  entirely  ignorant  of 
how  this  new  word  may  have  arisen  in  the  first  centuries  of  our  era.  In 
the  Sung  period  the  phonetic  part  seems  to  have  been  altered,  for  the 
dictionary  Tsi  yiin  ft  H,  published  by  Ting  Tu  T in  the  middle  of 
the  eleventh  century,  records  the  two  forms  ^ and  ^ as  popular  or 
common  at  that  time.  This  manner  of  writing  may  have  come  about 
under  the  immediate  influence  of  the  porcelain  of  Ts'e-chou,  which  then 
sprang  into  existence. 

The  preceding  remarks  on  the  term  ts'e  are  not  intended  to  encroach 
on  the  domain  of  the  sinologue.  No  one  feels  more  keenly  than  myself 
that  a critical  and  detailed  study  of  this  term  (not  based  on  the  modern 
cyclopaedias,  but  on  the  actual  source-works)  is  required,  and  should 
be  taken  up  some  day  by  a competent  sinologue  who  has  a taste  for 
researches  of  this  kind. 

The  previous  discussions  on  the  origin  of  porcelain  were  chiefly 
based  on  haggling  about  terms,  which  at  times  assumed  an  almost 
Talmudic  character.  Students  entered  into  the  arena  with  a dogmatic 
definition  fixed  in  their  minds,  of  what  porcelain  is  or  should  be,  and, 
according  to  their  personal  standpoint,  rejected  or  accepted  this  or 
that  period  at  which  porcelain  should  have  come  into  existence.  Thus 
we  face  the  amazing  spectacle  that  from  1856,  the  date  of  the  appear- 
ance of  Julien’s  celebrated  book  on  Chinese  porcelain,  down  to  the  pres- 
ent time,  almost  any  period  of  Chinese  civilization  has  been  claimed  as 
the  one  responsible  for  its  “invention.”  From  its  exalted  position  in 


1 Ts'ien  Han  shu,  Ch.  30,  p.  32  b.  By  the  way,  it  may  be  remarked  that  in 
A.D.  906  the  name  of  the  city  Ts'e-chou  was  changed  in  writing  into  , while 

in  916  the  old  character;^  was  restored  {T'ai  p'ing  huan  yii  ki,  Ch.  56,  p.  10 b). 


io8 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


the  Han  dynasties  proclaimed  by  Julien,  it  was  relegated  to  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Sung  dynasty  (a.d.  960)  by  E.  Grandidier;1  and  all  this 
glory  ended  in  its  final  degradation  into  as  late  a period  as  that  of  the 
Ming.  Mr.  E.  A.  Barber,  Director  of  the  Pennsylvania  Museum  in 
Philadelphia,  one  of  the  most  serious  students  of  pottery  in  this  coun- 
try, gives  vent  to  this  growing  pessimism  in  the  following  observation : 
“The  consensus  of  opinion  among  conservative  students  at  the  present 
day,  after  divesting  the  subject  of  all  sentimental  considerations,  is  that 
true  porcelain  first  appeared  during  the  Ming  dynasty,  which  would 
not  carry  it  back  of  the  fourteenth  century.  No  examples  of  actual 
porcelain,  that  can  with  certainty  be  referred  to  an  earlier  date,  are 
known  to  collectors;  and  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  had  such  ware 
been  produced  before  that  period,  some  few  pieces  at  least  would  have 
survived.  Indeed,  it  is  extremely  doubtful  whether  any  actual  examples 
antedating  the  fifteenth  century  can  be  found.”  ^ Mr.  Barber,  however, 
frankly  admits  that  the  Chinese  themselves  have  classed  all  wares  which 
possess  great  hardness  and  resonancy  (which  latter  is  an  indication  of 
vitrification)  with  porcelain,  and  that  it  is  true  that  a porcelanous  glaze 
was  used  to  some  extent  before  the  general  introduction  of  semi-trans- 
parent bodies.  This  concession  points  out  that  the  subject  may  be 
viewed  from  different  angles.  There  is,  indeed,  a twofold  point  of  view 
possible  and  permissible,  a European-American  and  a Chinese  one. 
Hobson,®  who  possesses  a large  share  of  critical  ability  combined  with 
true  common  sense  and  sane  judgment,  has  clearly  noticed  this  diver- 
sity. “The  quality  of  translucency  which  in  Europe  is  regarded  as 
distinctive  of  porcelain  is  never  emphasized  in  Chinese  descriptions,” 
he  observes,  and  goes  on  to  determine  the  difference  between  the 
Chinese  and  European  definitions  of  the  substance.  Now,  if  this  be 
true,  every  student  capable  of  objective  thinking  must  admit  that  it 
is  a logically  perverse  procedure  to  read  “our”  definitions  of  porcelain 
into  what  is  called  by  the  Chinese  ts'e,  but  that  for  the  correct  appre- 
ciation of  this  term  the  Chinese  viewpoint  exclusively  must  be  made 
the  basis  of  our  investigation.  In  other  words,  the  point  simply  is, 
that  we  must  endeavor  to  understand  what  notion  in  the  minds  or  in 
the  fancy  of  the  Chinese  is  conveyed  by  their  term  ts'e.  If  a bit  of 
pottery  is  styled  by  the  Chinese  ts'e,  yet  is  not  true  porcelain  in  our 
conception  of  the  matter,  we  are  obliged  to  give  the  Chinese  credit  for 
their  appellation,  and  to  get  at  their  mode  of  reasoning.  By  rejecting 


1 La  ceramique  chinoise,  p.  16  (Paris,  1894). 

2 Hard  Paste  Porcelain,  Part  first  (Oriental),  p.  7 (Philadelphia,  1910). 
^ Chinese  Pottery  and  Porcelain,  Vol.  I,  p.  148. 


Historical  Observations  and  Conclusions  109 

this  procedure  we  deprive  ourselves  of  the  opportunity  of  studying  and 
grasping  the  development  of  this  peculiar  ware.  By  arguing  that  in 
the  beginning  the  term  ts'e  connoted  nothing  but  ordinary  pottery,  we 
close  our  eyes  to  the  real  issue,  and  act  like  the  ostrich;  in  this  manner 
we  utterly  fail  to  comprehend  the  process  of  evolution  of  porcelain. 
The  early  ts'e  has  now  arisen,  and  is  that  ware  which  is  the  object  of 
this  article.  I further  make  bold  to  say  that  in  any  ancient  text  down 
to  the  T'ang  period,  where  the  term  ts'e  may  be  encountered,  it  will 
invariably  refer  to  a porcelain-like  pottery  which  has  some  relationship 
to  genuine  porcelain,  and  that  we  shall  not  err  in  translating  it  by 
“porcelanous  ware,”  or  a similar  expression. 


HISTORICAL  NOTES  ON  KAOLIN 


A disquisition  on  the  beginnings  of  porcelain  should  take  regard 
also  of  the  question  as  to  when  and  how  those  elementary  materials 
that  compose  porcelain  made  their  first  appearance.  Porcelain  is  a 
variety  of  pottery  the  body  of  which  consists  essentially  of  two  in- 
gredients of  earthen  origin,  that  are  fired  together.  These  two  sub- 
stances widely  occur  in  nature,  and  are  designated  by  us  with  their 
Chinese  names,  “kaolin”  and  “petuntse.”  The  former  is  a white 
clay,  infusible,  lending  plasticity  to  the  paste,  and  forming  the  body 
of  the  vessel.  Geologically  it  originated  through  a gradual  process 
of  decomposition  of  granite  and  analogous  crystalline  rocks.^  The 
latter  is  a hard  feldspathic  stone,  fusible  at  a high  temperatme,  con- 
stituting the  glaze  and  responsible  for  its  transparency. 

The  fact  that  kaolin  is  used  in  the  composition  of  Chinese  porcelain 
has  been  unduly  emphasized,  or  even  exaggerated,  by  European  his- 
torians of  porcelain.  Kaolin  was  heralded  as  a sort  of  important 
discovery,  that  led  to  the  revolutionizing  of  the  potter’s  art;  and  an 
inquiry  into  the  time  when  Chinese  authors  begin  to  speak  of  the 
substance  was  even  taken  as  a test  for  the  beginnings  of  porcelain 
itself.  This  is  not  a correct  conception  of  the  matter.  Kaolin  is 
nothing  but  a natural  clay,  not  of  very  unusual  occurrence,  and,  in 
fact,  has  been  utilized  by  potters  outside  of  China  without  resulting  in 
any  porcelain-like  product.^  Kaolin  itself  cannot  make  porcelain, 
and  the  presence  of  kaolin  in  the  composition  of  a certain  vessel  does 
not  constitute  proof  of  its  being  porcelain.  Kaolin  should  not  be 
confused  with  the  kaolinite  of  which  it  is  composed.  The  mineral 


^ See  Prestwick,  Geology,  Chemical,  Physical,  and  Stratigraphical,  Vol.  I,  p.  48. 

^ Thus  in  India  a white  earthenware  is  made  from  a decaying  white  granite, 
which  is  carefully  washed,  and  kneaded  into  a clay  that  produces  a porous  white 
ware.  . . . This  clay  is  in  composition  the  same  as  the  kaolin  of  China,  and  is  very 
abundant  in  India  (H.  H.  Cole,  Indian  Art  in  the  South  Kensington  Museum, 
p.  201).  The  Singalese  potter  (in  the  same  manner  as  his  Chinese  colleague  during 
the  T'ang  period)  uses  kaolin  as  a white  paint  for  decorating  pottery  (A.  K.  Cooma- 
RASWAMY,  Medireval  Sinhalese  Art,  p.  225;  see  also  Watt,  Dictionary  of  the  Eco- 
nomic Products  of  India,  Vol.  II,  p.  364).  It  is  well  known  that  kaolinic  deposits 
are  found  in  England,  France,  Germany,  and  North  America,  and  are  well  known 
from  many  other  parts  of  the  world.  As  to  America,  compare,  for  instance,  the 
interesting  study  of  A.  S.  Watts,  Mining  and  Treatment  of  Feldspar  and  Kaolin 
in  the  Southern  Appalachian  Regions  (Bulletin  No.  53  of  the  Department  of  the 
Interior,  Bureau  of  Mines,  Washington,  1913). 


no 


Historical  Notes  on  Kaolin 


III 


kaolinite  is  the  basis  of  kaolin,  and  theoretically  pure  kaolin  would 
contain  nothing  but  kaolinite ; but  kaolinite  is  also  the  basis  of  nearly 
all  common  clays.  In  these  it  is  mingled  with  larger  or  smaller  quan- 
tities of  various  minerals  by  which  its  properties  are  more  or  less  ob- 
scured. Hence  the  chemical  examination  of  almost  any  burned  pot- 
tery, even  of  common  bricks  and  the  crudest  and  cheapest  of  earthen- 
ware, will  disclose  the  presence  of  derivatives  of  kaolinite  which  might 
be,  and  as  a matter  of  convenience  frequently  is,  interpreted  as  due 
to  the  presence  of  small  quantities  of  kaolin,  instead  of  larger  quantities 
of  ordinary  clay  containing  kaolinite.  It  is  quite  certain  that  the 
bodies  of  many  early  Han  pottery  bits  contain  more  or  less  kaolin  or 
kaolinite,  yet  they  are  not  porcelains.  The  utilization  of  kaolin  for 
potter’s  work  on  a large  scale  is  not  a “discovery,”  but  rests  on  experi- 
ence. It  was  incidentally  found,  and  its  employment  was  gradually 
extended  through  a selective  progress  in  the  enrolment  of  materials. 

The  distinctive  structural  character  of  porcelain  is  based  on  the 
combination  of  three  elements, — a porous,  opaque  skeleton;  a trans- 
parent, dense  bond  penneating  the  skeleton;  and  a thin,  glassy  glaze  on 
the  outside,  which  merges  imperceptibly  with  the  body.  In  typical 
porcelains  the  opaque,  porous  body  is  kaolin  or  aluminous  derivatives 
therefrom,  which,  through  their  resistance  to  the  effects  of  heat,  sup- 
ply a rigidity  that  prevents  the  ware  from  deforming  in  the  kiln. 
Also  its  opacity  clouds  the  transparency  of  the  other  elements  to 
translucency.  The  kaolin  skeleton  is  permeated  and  bound  together 
by  a more  fusible  glass  or  enamel-like  substance  (petuntse),  which 
makes  the  ware  strong,  impervious,  and  translucent.  The  glaze  serves 
for  the  perfection  and  increased  lustre  of  the  surface.  Kaolin  alone 
makes  a ware  which  is  porous,  fragile,  and  opaque.  Petuntse  alone 
softens  in  the  kiln,  and  runs  together  into  a lump. 

For  the  lover  of  art  the  salient  and  distinctive  points  in  porcelain 
are  the  glaze  and  its  organic  combination  with  the  body.  The  body, 
as  a rule,  is  invisible:  it  is  the  glaze  that  is  intended  to  appeal  to  the 
spectator  and  to  convey  an  esthetic  impression. 

F.  Hirth^  was  the  first  to  call  attention  to  a statement  of  the 
Taoist  adept  T'ao  Hung-king  (452-536),  to  the  effect  that  in  his  time 
“white  clay”  {pai  ngo  & M),  or  kaolin,  was  much  utilized  in  painting,^ 


1 Ancient  Chinese  Porcelain,  p.  131. 

^ What  this  means  has  not  been  explained  by  Hirth,  who  translated,  “much 
used  for  painting  pictures.”  It  cannot  be  understood,  of  course,  that  kaolin  was  a 
pigment  applied  in  pictorial  art  to  paper  or  silk.  Technically  there  are  but  two 
possibilities:  kaolin  may  have  been  utilized  in  architectural  painting  for  the  decora- 
tion of  walls,  being  applied  to  a colored  background,  or  it  may  have  been  employed 


II2 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


and  was  low  in  price.  This  passage  is  found  in  the  Cheng  lei  pen  ts'ao, 
a learned  pharmacopoeia  written  by  the  physician  T'ang  Shen-wei, 
and  first  published  in  iio8.  This  text  allows  of  the  inference  that 
porcelain  clay  was  known  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fifth  or  beginning 
of  the  sixth  century;  but  I should  not  go  so  far  as  to  conclude  with 
Hirth  that  T'ao  Hung-king  “would  have  surely  mentioned  the  use  of 
porcelain  earth  in  the  manufacture  of  chinaware  if  in  his  time  it  had 
been  so  used  on  an  extensive  scale,”  and  that  “in  the  sixth  centmy, 
when  he  wrote,  the  use  of  porcelain  earth  for  pottery  purposes  was 
unknown.”  This  argument,  drawn  from  the  mere  silence  of  a writer, 
is  not  conclusive:  it  seems  preferable  to  think,  that,  judging  from  the 
trend  of  his  mind  and  the  direction  of  his  studies,  the  author  was  not 
at  all  interested  in  the  subject  of  pottery.  What  attracted  him  were 
not  the  artifacts  of  men,  but  the  substances  and  wonders  of  nature, 
that  might  reveal  healing-properties  for  the  benefit  of  his  suffering 
fellow-men.  Even  in  speaking  of  the  application  of  kaolin  to  pictorial 
subjects  or  decorative  designs,  he  does  not  mean  to  offer  a contribution 
to  technology,  but  he  incidentally  drops  this  remark  by  way  of  defini- 
tion, in  order  to  render  himself  intelligible  to  his  contemporaries  as  to 
the  matter  under  discussion;  for  he  says  literally,  “This  [that  is,  the 
white  clay  here  in  question]  is  identical  with  that  now  largely  utilized 
in  painting,  and  low  in  price.  Customarily  it  is  but  seldom  admin- 
istered in  prescriptions.”  ^ The  subsequent  works  dealing  with  pharma- 
cology, while  they  give  some  notice  to  porcelain  clay  on  account  of  its 


for  the  ornamentation  of  a surface  in  pottery  vessels.  The  latter  process  is  now  well 
known  to  us  through  numerous  specimens  of  the  T'ang  period.  The  Pen  ts'ao  kang 
mu  of  Li  Shi-chen  (section  on  clays,  Ch.  7,  p.  i)  has  the  reading  hua  kia  yung 
(instead  of  hua  yung  of  the  Cheng  lei  pen  ts'ao),  which  means  “used  by  painters.” 


* Hirth  pointed  out  another  text  in  the  Cheng  lei  pen  ts'ao,  which,  he  stated,  is 
quoted  from  the  T'ang  pen  ts'ao,  the  pharmacopoeia  of  the  T'ang  period,  compiled 
about  the  year  650.  In  the  edition  of  the  Cheng  lei  pen  ts'ao  before  me,  issued  in 
1523  (Ch.  5,  fol.  25),  the  passage  in  question,  however,  is  cited  from  a work  styled 
T'ang  pen  yu  (that  is,  “Remains  of  the  T'ang  Herbal ”),  and  introduced  by  the  words, 
“ The  commentary  says.”  I venture  to  doubt  that  this  work  T'ang  pen  yii  is  strictly 
identical  with  the  T'ang  pen  ts'ao  described  by  Bretschneider  (Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  i, 
p.  44),  especially  for  the  reason  that  a quite  different  extract  from  the  T'ang  pen  is 
quoted  in  the  Cheng  lei  pen  ts'ao  shortly  before  this  passage,  and  that  in  this  work 
quotations  from  the  former  are  constantly  referred  to  the  T'ang  pen  or  T'ang  pen  chu 
(apparently  the  annotations  of  the  drawings  mentioned  by  Bretschneider).  Be 
this  as  it  may,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  text  brought  to  light  by  Hirth  comes  down 
from  the  T'ang  period.  This  is  also  the  opinion  of  Li  Shi-chen,  who,  in  his  Pen  ts'ao 
kang  mu  (Ch.  7,  p.  6 b),  attributes  the  term  “white  porcelain  vessels”  {pai  ts'e  k'i) 
to  the  Pen  ts'ao  of  the  T'ang.  In  the  text  translated  by  Hirth  occurs  a clause  which 
he  rendered,  “During  recent  generations  it  has  been  used  to  make  white  porcelain.” 
Hobson  (Chinese  Pottery  and  Porcelain,  Vol.  I,  p.  146)  has  proposed  a new  transla- 
tion of  this  passage,  which  reads,  “During  recent  generations  it  has  been  prepared 


Historical  Notes  on  Kaolin 


113 

alleged  medicinal  properties,  yet  maintain  strict  reticence  in  regard 
to  porcelain  vessels,  though  these  were  positively  known  at  the  time 
of  their  publication,  for  the  simple  reason  that  this  topic  was  beyond 
their  scope.  Neither  the  Cheng  lei  pen  ts'ao  nor  the  Pen  ts'ao  kang  mu 
discusses  porcelain,  but  both  books  are  content  to  recommend  prescrip- 
tions of  kaolin  for  certain  complaints.  While  Su  Kung  upholds  that 
of  Ting-chou,  and  Li  Shi-chen  that  of  Jao-chou  (in  Kiang-si),  as  par- 
ticularly efficient,  this  is  merely  the  outcome  of  a more  specialized 
medical  subtlety. 

It  would  likewise  be  preposterous  to  assume  that  T'ao  Hung-king 
is  the  first  author  to  mention  kaolin.  On  the  contrary,  he  is  forestalled 
by  at  least  one  predecessor.  The  work  Pie  lu,^  which  existed  prior  to 
his  time,  as  quoted  in  the  Pen  ts'ao  (/.  c.),  states  that  “white  clay  {pai 
ngo)  originates  in  the  mountains  and  valleys  of  the  district  of  Han-tan 
n and  that  it  may  be  gathered  at  any  season.”  This  restriction 
to  a single  locality  certainly  does  not  betoken  the  scarcity  of  the  mate- 
rial, which  is  indeed  common  in  many  localities:  it  reflects  solely  the 
limitations  of  local  experience.  Under  the  Sung  we  hear  from  the  lips 
of  Su  Sung  that  this  variety  of  clay  was  then  ubiquitous,  and  was 
throughout  used  by  the  people  for  the  washing  of  their  clothes.^  This 
view  is  confirmed  by  Li  Shi-chen,  who  observes  that  white  clay  occurs 
everywhere,  and  is  employed  for  the  baking  of  white  pottery  vessels. 
However  common  the  occurrence  of  kaolin  in  China  may  be,  the  fact 


from  white  ware.”  From  a grammatical  point  of  view  this  translation  is  perfectly 
correct.  It  is,  however,  somewhat  difficult  to  understand  why  the  pharmacists  of 
the  T'ang  period  should  have  extracted  kaolin  from  finished  ceramic  products,  even 
though  it  was  only  from  fragments  of  such,  if  kaolin  could  so  easily  be  obtained  in 
nature;  or  it  is  conceivable  also  that  kaolin  inherent  in  pottery  was  vested  with  more 
efficient  magical  and  increased  healing-power,  as  it  had  undergone  a transmutation 
in  the  furnace.  We  have  to  know  more  about  the  development  of  alchemy  in  China 
before  we  may  hope  to  settle  many  interesting  questions  and  beliefs  connected  with 
pottery. 

1 See  Chinese  Clay  Figures,  p.  135,  note  4. 

^ It  comprised  what  now  forms  the  two  prefectures  of  Kuang-p'ing  and  Cheng-te, 
in  the  southern  part  of  Chi-li  Province,  and  in  particular  referred  to  Ts'e-chou.  In 
ancient  times  it  was  the  capital  of  the  state  of  Chao  (Chavannes,  Mdmoires  his- 
toriques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  II,  p.  92).  It  is  an  attractive  suggestion  of  Hobson 
(/.  c.,  p.  147),  that  the  kaolinic  deposits  of  Han-tan  should  have  supplied  material 
for  the  Ting-chou  potters. 

® K'ou  Tsung-shi,  in  his  Pen  ts'ao  yen  f of  1 1 16  (Ch.  6,  p.  ib;  ed.  of  Lu  Sin-yuan), 
makes  the  same  observation,  adding  that  the  substance  was  made  into  square  blocks 
sold  in  the  capital  under  the  name  “white  earth  powder”  ( pai  t'ufen  ^±B)- 
According  to  the  Ling  piao  lu  i (Ch.  A,  p.  4;  ed.  of  Wu  ying  tien)  by  Liu  Sun  of  the 
T'ang  period,  a white  and  greasy  earth  was  gathered  north  of  the  city  of  Fu  chou 
‘sm  (in  the  prefecture  of  Wu-ch'ang,  Hu-pei)  and  traded  over  southern  China, 
where  the  women  used  it  as  a face-powder.  This  probably  was  a kind  of  pipe-clay. 


1 14  Beginnings  of  Porcelain 

remains  that  this  observation  is  only  the  result  of  later  periods,  and 
that  in  times  of  antiquity  the  knowledge  of  it  was  much  restricted,  and 
attached  to  but  few  places.  The  wondrous  book  of  geographical  fables, 
the  Shan  hai  king,  mentions  it  in  two  passages.  One  is  embodied  in 
the  chapter  on  the  “Mountains  of  the  West”  {Si  shan  king  Ul  ^), 
saying  that  on  the  south  side  of  the  mountains  of  Ta-ts'e  there  is  plenty 
of  clay.^  The  other  contains  the  notice,  in  the  chapter  on  the  “Moim- 
tains  of  the  Centre”  {Chung  shan  king  tU  M),  that  “in  the  midst 
of  the  mountains  of  Ts'ung-lung  there  are  many  great  valleys  in  which 
there  is  plenty  of  white  clay;  apart  from  the  latter,  there  are  also 
black,  dark  blue,  and  yellow  clays.”  ^ Kuo  P'o  adds  that  also  varie- 
gated clay  is  said  to  occur.  Whether  the  two  texts  are  of  ancient 
date,  I do  not  venture  to  decide:  they  are  quoted  as  early  as  the  Sung 
period  by  Su  Sung  (a  distinguished  scholar,  and  editor  of  the  materia 
medica  T'u  king  pen  ts'ao),  in  his  discussion  of  kaolin,  which  he  winds 
up  by  remarking  that  solely  the  white  clay  is  medicinally  employed. 
Personally  I am  under  the  impression  that  the  Shan  hai  king,  in  the 
version  which  is  now  before  us,  is  not  older  than  the  Han  period,  and 
doubtless  contains  also  many  post-Han  interpolations.  I would  cer- 
tainly not  base  on  this  work  any  chronological  conclusions  as  to  the 
term  pai  ngo. 

The  Chinese  explanation  of  the  term  ngo  is  interesting,  because  it 
has  led  to  the  formation  of  a new  word.  The  character  M is  com- 
posed of  the  classifier  zh  (‘earth’)  and  the  phonetic  element  55.  The 
latter  enters  also  into  the  formation  of  the  character  which  like- 
wise has  the  sound  ngo  or  ngu  (‘evil’).  Li  Shi-chen®  is  therefore  led 
to  the  following  speculation:  “Since  the  normal  color  of  earth  is  yellow, 
white  must  be  considered  as  an  evil  color  in  earth;  hence  it  was  called 
ngo  [that  is,  ‘evil  earth’].  Subsequent  generations  tabooed  this  word, 
and  changed  it  into  pai  shan  S W [that  is,  ‘the  white  good  one’].” 
The  notion  of  “wicked  earth”  is  elicited  by  punning,  the  two  words 
M and  M being  homophonous.  This  jocular  interpretation  must 
have  existed  as  a popular  tradition  since  ancient  times,  since  the  result 
of  it,  the  opposite  term  pai  shan,  is  said  to  have  occurred  in  the  Pie  lu. 
K'ou  Tsung-shi,  whose  Pen  ts'ao  yen  i was  published  in  iii6,  styles 
kaolin  “white  good  earth.”  This  was  under  the  Sung,  when  the 
porcelain  industry  received  a powerful  stimulus.  The  term  pai  shan 


(Ch.  I,  p.  27  b;  of  the  edition  printed  in  1855  at 
Shun-k'ing,  Sze-ch'uan).  The  character^,  according  to  the  commentary  of  Kuo  P'o 
(276-324),  is  to  be  read  ngu  (or  ngo),  explained  as  “earth  of  very  white  color.” 

(Ch. 2, p.  15 b). 

® Pen  ts'ao  kang  mu,  Ch.  7,  p.  i. 


Historical  Notes  on  Kaolin 


115 

S # is  met  with  as  early  as  the  T'ang  period  (618-906),  in  the  min- 
eralogical  glossary  Shi  yao  erh  ya  ^ M W 3®,  compiled  by  Mei  Piao 
the  period  Ytian-ho  (807-82 1) d Here  it  is  given  as  a synonyme 
of  kan  t'u  "H* *  i.  (“sweet  earth”),  on  a par  with  other  synonymes  for 
this  term,  which  are  pai  tan  6 tan  tao  iJi!,  and  t'u  tsing  i.  M 
(“essence  of  earth”).  At  an  earlier  date  we  find  the  term  shan  in  the 
Buddhist  dictionary  Yi  ts'ie  king  yin  z — ' M compiled  by  the 

monk  Yuan  Ying  X M about  a.d.  649,  who  explains  it  as  shan  t'u  ^ i. 
(“good  earth”),  and  identifies  it  with  “white  clay”  (pai  t'u  0 zh) 
and  ngo.  The  most  interesting  point  is,  that  this  author  cites  the 
Wu  p'u  pen  ts'ao  ^ ^ to  the  effect  that  the  term  pai  ngo  has  a 

synonyme  in  the  form  pai  shan  6 According  to  Bretschneider,® 

the  Wu  p'u  pen  ts'ao  was  written  by  Wu  P'u  under  the  Wei  dynasty  in 
the  first  half  of  the  third  century  a.d.  If  the  definition,  as  handed 
down  by  Yuan  Ying,  was  really  contained  in  this  work,  we  should 
have  a formal  testimony  for  the  knowledge  of  kaolin  in  the  third 
century.  The  case  was  presumably  such,  that  in  the  T'ang  era,  when 
the  excellent  qualities  of  kaolin  were  first  recognized,  the  transforma- 
tion of  the  word  took  effect,  and  ultimately  resulted  in  a new  charac- 
ter formed  with  the  word  shan  ^ as  phonetic  element,  and  the  classifiers 
‘earth’  i or  ‘stone’  Ti.  The  taboo  announced  by  Li  Shi-chen  cannot 
have  taken  serious  dimensions,  for  the  ceramic  authors  of  the  Manchu 
dynasty  perpetuated  the  word  ngo,  and  abstained  from  the  word  shan. 

In  a poem  of  Se-ma  Siang-ju,  entitled  Tse  su  fu  M ,■*  ochre 

and  white  clay  (che  ngo  M)  are  spoken  of  as  natural  products  of 
Sze-ch'uan.®  The  attribute  “white”  is  not  in  the  text,  which  merely 
offers  the  word  ngo;  but  Chang  Yi  ^ W;,  the  author  of  the  dictionary 
Kuang  ya  M,  who  lived  in  the  first  part  of  the  third  century  a.d.. 


1 Reprinted  in  the  collection  Fie  Jiia  chai  (Ch.  A,  p.  4). 

® Ch.  17,  p.  2 (edition  of  Nanking).  Regarding  this  work  see  Julien,  Histoire 
de  la  vie  de  Hiouen  Tsang,  p.  xxiii;  Wylie,  Notes  on  Chinese  Literature,  p.  21 1; 
Watters,  Essays  on  the  Chinese  Language,  p.  52;  Bunyiu  Nanjio,  Catalogue  of  the 
Tripitaka,  No.  1605. 

’ Bot.  Sin.,  pt.  1,  p.  40. 

* Shi  ki,  Ch.  1 17,  p.  2 b.  The  poet  died  in  117  b.c. 

^ They  are  likewise  mentioned  as  products  of  that  region  (Shu)  in  the  Hua  yang 
kuo  chi  (Ch.  3,  p.  I b,  ed.  of  Han  Wei  ts'ung  shu).  Under  the  year  991  there  is 
mentioned  in  the  Sung  Annals  the  pictorial  decoration  of  a palace  by  means  of  the 
same  two  substances.  The  same  term  appears  in  Lie-tse  (Wieger,  Les  pSres  du 
syst^me  taoiste,  p.  104),  when  King  Mu  built  a palace  for  a juggler,  who  had  come 
from  the  farthest  west.  This  chapter  of  Lie-tse  (and  probably  many  others),  in 
my  opinion,  comes  down  from  the  Han  period;  and  this  conclusion  is  confirmed 
by  the  term  che  ngo  which  does  not  occur  earlier  than  that  time.  The  work  of 
Lie-tse  is  first  mentioned  in  the  Ts'ien  Han  shu  (Ch.  30,  p.  12  b). 


ii6 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


comments  on  this  passage,  that  ngo  has  there  the  meaning  of  “white 
clay”  {pai  ngo),  which,  he  adds,  is  identical  with  the  term  pai  shan 
used  in  the  Herbals  {pen  ts'ao),  so  that  what  he  means  is  doubtless 
kaolin.  Also  Yen  Shi-ku  (579-645),  annotating  the  same  word  in  the 
Han  Annals,  states  that  “it  is  identical  with  what  is  now  called  ‘white 
earth’  {pai  t'u)”  It  is  interesting  that  these  Confucian  scholars  of 
the  third  and  sixth  centuries  respectively  were  acquainted  with  kaolin, 
thus  following  suit  with  their  Taoist  colleagues;  but  it  appears  rather 
doubtful  whether  the  term,  as  used  in  the  Annals  of  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  can 
really  be  credited  with  the  significance  “kaolin.”  There  is  no  other 
testimony  to  this  effect  (leaving  aside  the  dubious  Shan  hat  king)  in 
the  Han  period;  and,  be  this  as  it  may,  the  passage  in  question  is  not 
conclusive,  the  substance  ngo  being  mentioned  solely  as  a product  of 
nature,  without  any  allusion  to  human  exploitation.  In  the  Glossary 
of  the  T'ang  Annals  the  term  ngo  is  interpreted  as  “white  earth” 
{pai  i'u  6 ih).^ 

In  the  T'ang  period,  kaolin  formed  also  a desirable  article  for  tribute 
or  taxes  to  the  Court,  which  certainly  means  that  it  was  employed  in 
the  manufacture  of  pottery.  The  Wu  ti  ki  (“Records  of  the 

Land  of  Wu”),  by  Lu  Kuang-wei  ^ ^ written  at  the  end  of  the 
ninth  century,  mentions  the  mountains  of  Hang  iL  as  hoarding 
white  earth  that  resembles  jade  and  is  very  resplendent,  and  that  the 
people  of  Wu,  who  gathered  it,  sent  as  tribute  under  the  name  pai 
ngoJ 

Passing  beyond  the  Han  period,  we  find  the  word  ngo  employed  in 
times  of  antiquity,  but  in  a peculiar  sense,  quite  distinct  from  the  later 
significance  “potter’s  clay.”  In  the  early  period  it  was  strictly  an 
architectural  term,  and  implied  a function  falling  within  the  province 
of  a mason.  This  ancient  significance  is  acknowledged  by  the  dic- 
tionary Erh  ya,  which,  in  its  section  concerned  with  the  nomenclature 
of  buildings,  states  that  ngo  is  the  designation  for  a whitewashed  wall; 
and  the  dictionary  Shi  ming  ^ ^ , by  Liu  Hi  §* *J  ^ of  the  Posterior 
Han,  is  still  more  explicit  on  this  point,  as  evidenced  by  the  annotation 
that  the  waU  is  first  raised  from  mud,  and  then  invested  with  a coating 
of  lime.®  The  Shuo  wen  explains  the  term  as  “white  plaster”  {pai  t'u 
6 f^).  The  principal  oflice  of  the  word  was  that  of  a verb,  with  the 


* T'ang  shu  shi  yin,  Ch.  5,  p.  20. 

* According  to  the  Gazetteer  of  the  Prefecture  of  Su-chou  {Su  chou  fu  chi, 
Ch.  20,  p.  15b),  kaolin  is  still  dug  on  the  Yang-shan  near  Su-chou  to  a depth  of  a 
hundred  feet. 

‘ (6'^*  W**'*^-  section  5,  p.  8;  ed.  of  King  sun  t'ang 
ts'ung  shu  or  Han  uvei  ts'ung  shu). 


Historical  Notes  on  Kaolin  117 

meaning  “to  plaster  or  whitewash  the  floor  or  the  walls  of  a house.” 
This  is  particularly  evidenced  by  the  verb  yu  WJ  (“to  blacken”), 
its  opposite,  to  which  it  is  closely  linked  in  order  to  express  the  per- 
formance of  a religious  ceremony  during  the  period  of  mourning. 
The  mourner  was  obliged  to  dwell  in  an  unplastered  earth  hut  for  two 
years.  After  the  sacrifice  in  the  commencement  of  the  third  year,  the 
ground  of  his  cot  was  blackened,  and  the  walls  were  whitened, — a 
rite  simply  expressed  by  the  compound  yu  ngo  WJ  M-.*  In  the  same 
chapter  of  the  “Book  of  Rites”  in  which  this  practice  is  mentioned, 
the  same  word  ngo  occurs  in  a somewhat  different  usage.  The  dwell- 
ing specially  erected  for  the  mourner  is  styled  ngo  shi  M a term  ex- 
plained as  “a  hut  made  of  unbumt  bricks  or  earth  pise  and  not  plas- 
tered,” and  used  in  the  Li  ki  four  times.  The  mourner  was  compelled 
to  divest  himself  of  all  comfort,  and  to  relapse  into  the  most  primitive 
habitation  of  early  times.  The  term  ngo  shi,  accordingly,  means  liter- 
ally “earth  house;”  and  during  the  archaic  period,  ngo  designated 
“loam,  mud,  or  clay  fit  for  building-purposes.”  Simultaneously, 
however,  it  was  applied  also  to  chalk  or  limestone,  denoting  the  process 
of  coating  a coarse  wall  with  a layer  of  white.  In  this  sense  it  is  utilized 
also  by  Chuang-tse  in  regard  to  the  whitening  of  one’s  nose.^  Since 
the  word  ngo,  which  is  still  defined  by  the  Shuo  wen  as  “white  plaster,” 
originally  referred  to  clay  and  chalk  at  the  same  time,  the  early  Chinese 
do  not  seem  to  have  clearly  discriminated  between  the  two  substances. 
The  term  pai  ngo,  which  adopted  the  meaning  “kaolin”  in  the  post- 
Christian  era,  is  still  used  to  convey  the  notion  of  “chalk,”  while  a 
stricter  terminology  formulates  for  the  latter  such  compounds  as  shi 
ngo  ^ M (“stone  clay”),  ngo  hui  M:  M (“clay  lime”),  or  pai  i'u  fen 
0 i.  !&■  (“white  earth  powder”).® 

One  point  stands  cut  clearly, — that  in  the  archaic  period  the  word 
ngo  signified  “loam  and  chalk  used  in  building,”  and  was  appropriate 
to  the  activity  of  the  mason,  but  that  it  neither  denoted  potter’s  clay 
nor  had  any  relation  whatever  to  the  work  of  the  potter.  The  main 
point  to  be  borne  in  mind  is,  that  there  is  no  reference  to  “white  clay” 
{pai  ngo)  in  any  authentic  document  of  the  Han  period, — a fact  thor- 
oughly corroborated  by  archaeological  evidence.  The  “white  clay,” 


1 Li  ki,  ed.  Couvreur,  Vol.  II,  p.  240;  translation  of  Legge,  Vol.  II,  p.  192. 

^ Ch.  24,  § 5;  see  the  edition  of  L.  Wieger,  Taoisme,  Vol.  II,  p.  420.  It  is 
notable  that  the  stage-fool  still  appears  in  China  with  his  nose  whitened;  and  the 
figure  of  an  actor  represented  by  a T'ang  clay  statuette  in  the  Museum  collection 
is  thus  characterized. 

® See  F.  DE  MfLY,  Lapidaires  chinois,  p.  99;  F.  Porter  Smith,  Contributions 
towards  the  Materia  Medica  of  China,  p.  58. 


ii8 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


or  “kaolin,”  makes  its  first  appearance  in  the  Pie  lu,  an  early  Taoist 
work  of  uncertain  date,  and  preserved  only  by  way  of  quotations  in 
subsequent  pharmaceutical  literatiure.  This  lacune  in  our  knowledge, 
however,  is  no  matter  of  great  concern  for  the  history  of  porcelain, 
for  that  work  contains  no  allusion  to  pottery.  Chang  Yi  and  Kuo  P'o 
of  the  third  century  appear  to  have  been  familiar  with  kaolin;  likewise 
Wu  P'u,  the  author  of  a materia  medica  under  the  Wei  (p.  115).  The 
medical  literature  of  the  T'ang  period  is,  and  thus  far  remains,  the 
earliest  source  to  convey  an  allusion  to  white  porcelain  produced  from 
kaolin.  Prior  to  that  time,  this  substance  seems  to  have  found  applica- 
tion chiefly  in  medicine,  and  as  engobe  on  pottery.  It  probably  played 
a role  also  in  alchemical  experiments.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe 
that  it  was  the  nature-loving  and  drug-hunting  professors  of  Taoism 
who  first  experimented  with  this  clay,  and  this  accounts  for  the  fact 
that  the  subject  has  found  its  way  into  the  pages  of  the  Shan  hai  king. 
What  the  share  of  the  Taoists  was  in  the  initial  stages  of  porcelanous 
ware,  or  whether  a share  in  it  is  due  to  them  at  all,  we  have  as  yet  no 
means  of  ascertaining.  That  they  had  a share  in  it,  however,  is  more 
than  probable,  since  the  preparation  of  clays  and  glazes  is  a matter  of 
chemistry;  that  is,  in  ancient  times,  of  alchemy  (see  also  p.  142). 

It  is  obvious  that  no  forcible  conclusion  as  to  the  date  of  porcelain 
can  be  deduced  from  a consideration  of  the  history  of  kaolin.  It  is 
notable,  however,  that  it  was  known  at  least  in  the  third  century  a.d.  ; 
and  this  chimes  in  with  my  dating  of  the  early  kaolinic  ware  in  the 
same  period.  Once  more  we  see  that  for  the  history  of  porcelain  we 
have  to  depend  on  archeological  evidence. 

It  is  unfortunately  impossible  to  outline  a similar  sketch  of  the 
history  of  petuntse,  or  porcelain  stone;  but  it  is  not  surprising  that 
the  Chinese  have  preserved  no  historical  notes  regarding  this  substance. 
It  is  simply  a feldspathic  rock,  for  which  no  other  than  the  general 
designation  “stone”  {shi  exists.  It  is  a general  error  to  believe 
that  the  mass  itself  is  styled  by  the  Chinese  “petuntse”  (properly, 
pai  tun-tse  S ^ an  error  chiefly  propounded  by  A.  J.  C.  Geerts.^ 
JuLiEN^  was  somewhat  astonished  at  the  expression,  saying  that  the 
Chinese  authors  who  wrote  on  porcelain  fail  to  explain  the  sense  of  the 
word  tun  7fC.  K'ang-hi’s  Dictionary  does  not  ascribe  to  the  latter  any 
mineralogical  significance;  in  fact,  it  has  none  whatever,  and  is  never 
used  by  Chinese  writers  on  mineralogy.  The  character  in  question  is 


^ Les  produits  de  la  nature  japonaise  et  chinoise,  Vol.  II,  p.  376  (Yokohama, 
1883). 

^ Histoire  et  fabrication  de  la  porcelaine  chinoise,  p.  122. 


Historical  Notes  on  Kaolin 


119 

merely  substituted  as  an  easy  and  convenient  abbreviation  for  tun 
Wi,  which  means,  as  Giles  rightly  says,  “a  square  block  of  stone. 
The  term  pat  tun-tse,  therefore,  simply  signifies  “white  briquette,”  and 
certainly  is  one  of  a purely  commercial,  not  mineralogical  character: 
it  relates  to  the  color  and  shape  of  these  blocks,  as  they  are  traded  from 
the  places  of  production  to  the  centres  of  porcelain  manufacture.  Our 
mode  of  applying  the  term  “petuntse”  to  the  material,  therefore, 
is  wrong.  The  fact  that  this  rock,  which  enters  into  the  manufacture 
of  porcelain,  was  roughly  known  to  the  Chinese  long  before  the  time 
of  this  specific  employment,  cannot  reasonably  be  doubted. 


1 In  the  second  edition  of  his  Dictionary,  Giles  has  justly  placed  the  term 
“petuntse”  under  this  character  (No.  12205). 


THE  INTRODUCTION  OF  CERAMIC  GLAZES  INTO  CHINA, 
WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  THE  MURRINE  VASES 


We  know  at  present  as  a fact  that  glazed  pottery  first  appeared  in 
China  during  the  Han  period,  and  that  the  process  of  glazing  earthen- 
ware was  unknown  in  pre-Han  times.  The  Han  potter’s  art  was 
revolutionized,  as  we  have  seen,  by  the  adoption  of  this  new  technique, 
which  finally  resulted,  toward  the  middle  or  the  close  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, in  the  production  of  a peculiar  porcelanous  glaze,  the  forerunner 
of  true  porcelain.  Porcelain  being  universally  considered  as  a truly 
Chinese  invention,  the  broader  question  may  now  be  raised.  Is  the 
invention  of  glazing,  the  technical  foundation  of  porcelain,  wholly 
due  to  the  genius  of  the  Chinese,  or  was  the  impetus  received  from  an 
outside  quarter?  R.  L.  Hobson^  has  made  the  following  general 
reply  to  this  query:  “Though  supported  by  negative  evidence  only, 
the  theory  that  the  Chinese  first  made  use  of  glaze  in  the  Han  period 
is  exceedingly  plausible.  In  the  scanty  references  to  earlier  wares 
in  ancient  texts  no  mention  of  glaze  appears,  and,  indeed,  the  severe 
simplicity  of  the  older  pottery  is  so  emphatically  urged  that  such  an 
embellishment  as  glaze  woiild  seem  to  have  been  almost  undesirable. 
The  idea  of  glazing  earthenware,  if  not  evolved  before,  would  now  be 
naturally  suggested  to  the  Chinese  by  the  pottery  of  the  Western 
peoples  with  whom  they  first  made  contact  about  the  beginning  of  the 
Han  dynasty.  Glazes  had  been  used  from  high  antiqmty  in  Egypt; 
they  are  found  in  the  Persian  bricks  at  Susa  and  on  the  Parthian 
coffins,  and  they  must  have  been  commonplace  on  the  pottery  of  west- 
ern Asia  two  hundred  years  before  our  era.”  I am  of  the  same  opinion, 
that  Chinese  knowledge  of  glazing  is  derived  from  the  West,  and 
propose  to  discuss  this  problem  on  the  following  pages.  I hope  to 
enlist  all  the  available  facts  in  the  case,  so  as  to  place  our  theory  on  a 
solid  historical  foundation. 

The  course  of  my  investigation  is  as  follows.  The  home  of  glass, 
glazed  pottery,  and  faience,  was  Egypt  and  the  anterior  Orient;  and 
the  reputation  of  this  ware  spread  to  Rome  under  the  name  “murrine 
vessels.”  The  latter  stibject,  being  still  of  a controversial  nature,  is 
of  especial  importance  in  this  connection,  as  it  shows  us  the  high  appre- 
ciation and  expansion  of  glazed  ware  over  the  Mediterranean  area  at 


Chinese  Pottery  and  Porcelain,  Vol.  I,  p.  8. 


120 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China 


I2I 


a period  synchronous  with  the  coming  into  existence  of  this  pottery 
in  China.  This  synchronism  is  not  accidental,  but  is  due  to  the  wide 
fame  and  diffusion  of  this  novel  process  in  the  Far  East.  It  will  then 
be  set  forth  from  Chinese  records  how  the  Chinese  became  acquainted 
with  it  in  consequence  of  their  contact  with  the  Roman-Hellenistic 
Orient;  how  the  materials  required  for  the  technique  were  propagated 
to  India,  Cambodja,  and  China,  and  in  what  manner  they  were  turned 
to  practical  use  by  the  ancient  Chinese. 

If  I venture  to  dwell  here  at  some  length  on  the  much-disputed 
murrine  vases  of  the  ancients,  the  main  reason  for  this  invasion  of 
foreign  territory  is  that  this  subject  seems  to  me  to  embody  an  essential 
chapter  in  the  history  of  the  art  of  glazing,  which  allows  us  to  grasp 
clearly  the  significance  of  its  eastward  migration.  My  further  line  of 
defence  rests  on  various  attempts  made  by  older  and  more  recent 
authors  to  interpret  the  murrine  vases  as  having  been  Chinese  porce- 
lain; and  in  further  vindication  I may  point  to  two  sinologues  who  in 
the  first  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  participated  in  the  discussion 
of  this  problem, — Joseph  Hager  and  Abel-Remusat.  The  former^ 
endeavored  to  prove  in  a hardly  convincing  manner  that  the  substance 
of  which  the  murrines  were  made  was  identical  with  the  jade  of  the 
Chinese;  wliile  the  latter^  combated  this  opinion,  and  conclusively 
demonstrated  that  Chinese  nephrite  does  not  at  all  correspond  to 
the  description  given  by  Pliny  of  the  murrine  vases.  The  chief  argu- 
ment which  runs  counter  to  this  theory,  and  which  has  not  been  stated 
by  Abel-Remusat,  is  that  ancient  Chinese  jade  objects  have  as  yet 
not  been  traced  in  any  country  of  classical  civilization,  and  that  nothing 
is  on  record  in  regard  to  such  a trade,  either  in  Chinese  or  classical 
documents.  Moreover,  the  provenience  of  the  murrines,  as  indicated 
by  Pliny  and  the  Periplus  Maris  Erythraei,  must  not  be  disregarded: 
they  came  from  Egypt,  Persia,  and  India,  and  were  chiefly  productions 
of  Persia.  In  none  of  these  countries  have  we  any  evidence  as  to  the 
occurrence  of  Chinese  jade  pieces  in  ancient  times.* 

In  a study  devoted  to  the  beginnings  of  porcelain  in  China,  in  which 
an  attempt  has  been  made  to  determine  more  exactly  the  first  appear- 
ance of  porcelanous  ware  on  Chinese  soil,  a word  may  be  permitted 


1 Description  des  medailles  chinoises  du  Cabinet  Imperial  de  France,  pp.  150-168 
(Paris,  1805). 

^ Histoire  de  la  ville  de  Khotan,  tirde  des  annales  de  la  Chine  et  traduite  du 
chinois;  sidvie  de  recherches  sur  la  substance  mindrale  appelde  par  les  Chinois 
pierre  de  lu,  et  sur  le  jaspe  des  anciens,  pp.  195-208  (Paris,  1820). 

® More  recently  the  nephrite  hypothesis  with  reference  to  the  murrines  has  been 
reiterated  by  A.  von  Nordenskiold  (Umsegelung  Asiens  und  Europas,  Vol.  II,  p.  230). 


122 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


with  reference  to  the  theory  that  the  murrines  might  have  been  porce- 
lain of  Chinese  origin.  This  view  predominated  in  Europe  for  three 
centuries,  till  it  yielded  to  still  more  fantastic  ideas  in  modem  times. 
Jerome  Cardan  (Hieronymus  Cardanus),  the  Italian  mathematician 
(1501-76),  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  father  of  the  porcelain  theory. 
In  his  work  “De  subtilitate  remm”  (Niimberg,  1550,  p.  119),  he 
made  the  assertion,  “Sunt  autem  myrrhina  ea,  quae  hodie  vocantur 
Porcellanea,”  and  supported  it  by  the  explanation  that  they  had 
come  to  western  Asia  from  China,  the  country  of  the  Seres,  and  that 
whatever  does  not  fit  in  with  them  in  the  description  of  Pliny  became 
subsequently  altered  in  the  manufacture  of  these  vessels.  Julius 
Caesar  Scaliger  (1484-1558)  concurred  with  him  in  this  opinion,  and 
only  reproached  his  predecessor  for  having  advanced  his  statement  in 
too  timid  a fashion.  His  son,  the  great  scholar  Joseph  Justus  Scaliger 
(1540-1609),  inherited  and  accepted  his  father’s  verdict.  Whatever 
we  may  think  of  the  view  of  the  two  Scaliger,  it  remains  interesting, 
as  it  was  at  their  time  that  porcelain  gradually  became  known  in 
Europe;  and  this  fact  may  certainly  have  reacted  on  the  shaping  of 
their  opinion. 

In  the  eighteenth  and  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the 
old  opinion  that  by  “ the  murrines  ” should  be  understood  porcelain,  was 
revived  by  P.  J.  Maeiette^  and  by  E.  H.  Roloff,^  the  latter  a physi- 
cian, whose  work  is  accompanied  by  notes  and  additions  at  the  hands 
of  Ph.  Buttmann.  The  theory  of  Cardanus  and  Scaliger  was  here 
defended  afresh  and  with  circumstantial  detail,  and  seemingly  with 
such  success  that  it  maintained  its  place  for  some  twenty-five  years, 
until  F.  Thiersch®  brought  about  the  victory  of  the  mineralogical 
theory,  and  replaced  the  murrines  of  porcelain  by  murrines  of  fluor-spar. 
Roloff  and  Buttmann  based  their  argumentation  pre-eminently  on 
the  famous  passage  of  Propertius  in  which  are  mentioned  “murrine 
cups  baked  in  the  kilns  of  the  Parthians”  (murreaque  in  Parthis  pocula 
cocta  focis),  that  without  any  doubt  refer  to  ceramic  productions. 
They  utterly  failed,  however,  to  furnish  any  exact  and  logical  evidence 
for  their  proposed  identification  of  murrines  with  porcelain,  which 
was  merely  a preconceived  idea,  or  nothing  more  than  their  personal 
impression  in  the  matter.  They  argued  that  this  porcelain  must 
have  come  from  the  land  of  the  Seres,  China,  where  it  is  exceedingly 


1 Traite  des  pierres  gravees,  Vol.  I,  p.  219  (Paris,  1750). 

^ Wolf’s  and  Buttmann’s  Museum  der  Alterthumswissenschaft,  Vol.  II,  pp.  519-572, 
1810. 


® Uber  die  Vasa  murrina  der  Alten  {Abhandlungen  der  bayerischen  Akademie, 
1835,  pp.  443-509). 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China 


123 


ancient,  and  must  accordingly  have  been  exported  as  early  as  in 
times  of  antiquity,  and  certainly  to  Persia,  whence  the  murrines  were 
imported  to  Rome.  For  a brief  period  it  would  have  seemed  as 
though  the  alleged  discovery  of  Chinese  porcelain  bottles  in  Egyp- 
tian tombs  might  lend  support  to  such  an  opinion;  but  for  a long 
time  we  have  known  that  the  whole  story  amounts  to  a not  very 
clever  fraud.^ 

When  the  murrine  vases  were  identified  with  porcelain,  European 
knowledge  of  the  history  of  porcelain  in  China  was  still  in  its  infancy 
and  of  the  vaguest  character;  and  if  a subject  is  obscure  or  little  known, 
speculation  is  usually  rife,  and  the  almost  incredible  is  readily  accepted. 
In  1857  Bostock  and  Riley^  still  commented  on  the  murrines,  that 
modem  writers  differ  as  to  the  material  of  which  these  vessels  were 
composed;  that  some  think  that  they  were  of  variegated  glass,  and 
others  of  onyx,  but  that  the  more  general  opinion  is  that  they  were 
Chinese  porcelain.  The  last  view  has  never  entirely  lost  its  ground, 
and  still  counts  adherents  in  this  country.  In  the  “New  Standard 
Dictionary,”  published  by  Funk  and  Wagnalls  of  New  York  in  1913, 
we  read,  under  the  article  “murrine  vases,”  “porcelain  vases  brought 
from  the  East  to  Rome.” 

The  present  investigation  allows  us  to  settle  tliis  problem  definitely. 
It  is  out  of  the  question  that  the  murrine  vessels  were  Chinese  porce- 
lain, since  at  the  time  when  the  former  were  traded  from  the  Orient 
to  Rome  nothing  like  porcelain  existed  on  this  globe.  We  have  seen 
that  ceramic  products  with  porcelanous  glaze  do  not  come  up  in  China 
earlier  than  the  latter  part  of  the  third  century  a.d.,  and  that  anything 
of  the  character  of  tme  porcelain  cannot  be  pointed  out  before  the 
sixth  century.  The  vasa  murrhina,  however,  are  mentioned  consider- 
ably earlier  than  these  two  dates.  They  were  first  brought  to  Rome 
in  61  B.c.  by  Pompey,  who,  after  his  triumph,  dedicated  cups  of  this 
description  to  Jupiter  Capitolinus.  Pompey  himself  had  obtained  them 
from  Mithridates.  Augustus  appropriated  a single  murrine  vessel 
from  the  treasure  of  Queen  Cleopatra,  which  is  cited  as  an  instance 
of  his  moderation.^  In  the  time  posterior  to  Pompey,  the  murrines 
became  more  frequent  in  Rome,  and  aroused  a passion  for  them  among 
the  upper  four  hundred.  Classical  Roman  literature  does  not  make 


* Compare  S.  Julien,  Histoire  et  fabrication  de  la  porcelaine  chinoise, 
pp.  xi-xxii;  F.  Hirth,  Chinesische  Studien,  pp.  45-48;  N.  Rondot,  On  the  Chinese 
Coins  and  Small  Porcelain  Bottles  found  in  Egypt  {Journal  China  Branch  R.  As. 
Soc.,  Vol.  XXXII,  1897-98,  pp.  66-78). 

^ The  Natural  History  of  Pliny,  Vol.  VI,  p.  392. 

® Suetonius,  Augustus,  71. 


124 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


any  mention  of  them;  they  are  foreign  to  the  works  of  Cicero  and  Varro, 
as  well  as  to  the  poems  of  Horace,  Ovid,  and  Vergil.  Propertius  (bom 
about  49  B.c.)  is  the  first  to  make  a distinct  allusion  to  them.  They 
are  further  mentioned  by  other  poets,  like  Statius,  Juvenalis,  and 
Martialis.  Pliny  is  the  only  one  to  give  a somewhat  more  detailed, 
though  insufficient,  description.  The  first  centuries  preceding  and 
following  our  era,  accordingly,  were  the  period  when  the  murrines 
formed  the  fashion  of  the  day  in  Rome;  and  porcelain  was  not  then 
made  in  China.  The  Chinese  records  relative  to  the  Roman  Orient 
and  Persia  are  reticent  as  to  trade  in  pottery;  and  the  fact  remains 
that  in  Persia,  India,  Egypt,  Greece,  or  Rome,  has  never  been  dis- 
covered a specimen  of  Chinese  porcelain  of  such  age  that  could  lay 
claim  to  being  regarded  as  murrine.^ 

In  the  light  of  our  present  knowledge,  the  porcelain  hypothesis 
must  be  characterized  as  a failure,  and  as  being  doomed  to  oblivion. 
The  efforts  of  the  men,  however,  who  formtdated  their  thoughts  along 
this  line,  have  not  been  entirely  futile;  for,  as  it  so  frequently  happens, 
error  will  ultimately  lead  us  to  the  knowledge  of  tmth.  The  champions 
of  porcelain  murrines  were  quite  correct  in  the  pursuit  of  one  point  of 
view, — that  the  murrines  were  of  pottery,  not,  as  has  been  asserted, 
of  a mineral  substance.  Their  fundamental  error  lay  mainly  in  the 
rash  manner  in  which  they  jumped  at  the  conclusion  that  Chinese 
pottery  was  involved;  while  we  plainly  have  to  adhere  to  the  fact, 
transmitted  to  us  by  the  ancients,  that  the  murrine  vessels  were  wrought 
in  the  Empire  of  the  Parthians,  and  that,  as  stated  by  Propertius,  they 
were  baked  or  fired  in  Parthian  furnaces.  They  were  consequently 
products  of  Iranian  pottery;  and  the  peculiar  coloration  described  by 
Pliny  obviously  hints  at  a beautiful  and  elaborate  glazing  which  was 
brought  out  on  those  vessels.  My  thesis,  accordingly,  is  that  the 
famed  murrines  of  the  ancients  were  highly-glazed  pieces  of  Oriental, 


'■  Even  under  the  Han,  the  potter's  craft,  which  in  that  period  had  without  any 
doubt  developed  into  an  art,  possessed  no  more  than  purely  local  significance,  and 
merely  catered  to  the  home  consumption  of  the  small  community  for  whose  benefit 
the  produce  was  turned  out.  It  seems  certain  that  no  inland  trade  in  pottery  was 
then  developed,  still  less  was  there  an  exportation  of  the  article.  It  is  notable 
that  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  in  his  famous  dissertation  on  the  “Balance  of  Trade”  (Shi  ki, 
Ch.  30,  translated  by  Chavannes,  Memoires  historiques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  Ill, 
pp.  538-604),  describing  the  remarkable  efforts  of  the  Han  in  the  second  century 
B.c.  toward  a regulation  of  the  factors  of  wealth  and  commerce,  does  not  make 
any  allusion  to  potters  or  pottery  as  an  article  of  trade.  Neither  do  we  meet,  in 
the  historical  documents  of  the  Han  bearing  on  foreign  relations,  any  mention  of 
such  export-ware.  The  incidental  mention  by  Se-ma  Ts'ien  of  “a  thousand  jars 
(hang)  filled  with  pickles  and  sauces,”  adverted  to  also  in  the  T'ao  shuo  (Bushell, 
Description  of  Chinese  Pottery,  p.  93),  is  without  significance. 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China 


125 


that  is,  Iranian  or  Persian  and  Egyptian,  pottery.  This  conclusion 
directly  results  from  the  documentary  evidence  which  the  ancient 
authors  have  left  us.  It  will  be  demonstrated  at  the  same  time  that 
the  substance  murra,  of  which  the  murrine  vases  were  made,  cannot 
have  been  a mineral  of  any  sort. 

The  Latin  word  murra  (less  correctly  murrha,  myrrha),  from  which 
the  adjectives  murreus  {murrheus,  myrrheus)  and  murrinus  are  derived, 
was  adopted  from  the  Greek  morrion  (in  Pausanias)  and  the  adjectival 
form  murrinos,  used  in  the  Periplus.^  The  real  significance  of  this 
word  is  as  yet  unexplained.  Certain  it  is  that  it  is  neither  Latin  nor 
Greek,  but  was  handed  down  from  the  Orient  with  the  objects  which 
it  served  to  designate.  Roloff  was  the  only  one  to  attempt  an  ex- 
planation of  the  peculiar  term  by  inviting  attention  to  a Russian  word, 
murava,  which  denotes  “glazed  pottery.”  The  defenders  of  the 
mineralogical  hypothesis  have  naturally  rejected  this  point  of  view 
without  giving  reasons  why  it  should  not  be  acceptable.^  Yet  this 
opinion  is  worthy  of  serious  consideration.  If  it  can  be  proved  that 
the  murrines  were  glazed  pottery  vessels,  there  is  a great  deal  of  prob- 
ability in  the  conviction  that  the  word  murra  applies  to  their  most 
striking  feature,  the  glaze.  The  Russian  word  pointed  out  by  Roloff 
indeed  exists.  It  is  recorded  in  all  good  Russian  dictionaries.  Vladi- 
mir Dal,®  the  eminent  Russian  lexicographer,  notes  it  in  the  forms 
murdva,  muravd,  and  nittr,  with  a dialectic  variant  murom  (or  murom')* * 
used  in  the  Governments  of  Pskov  and  Tver,  and  interprets  it  as  the 
glaze  applied  to  the  surface  of  a pottery  vessel.  Besides  this  word,  the 
Russian  language  avails  itself  of  the  loan-word  glazur  (derived  from 
German  Glasur)  and  the  indigenous  word-formation  poUva  for  the 
connotation  of  the  same  idea.  The  words  mur  and  murava,  not  to 
be  found  in  any  other  Slavic  or  European  language,  are  not  derived 
from  any  Slavic  stem,  but,  like  other  Russian  culture- words,  are  bor- 
rowings from  an  Iranian  language.  The  onomasticon  of  Ancient 
Iranian  is  but  imperfectly  preserved;  and  the  word  mrira  or  murra, 
which  has  doubtless  existed  in  that  language,  has  not  been  handed 
down  to  us  in  an  Iranian  literary  monument;  although  a survival  of 
it,  in  all  probability,  is  preserved  in  Persian  mdrt,  murl,  or  murii. 


' The  readings  morrinos,  myrrinus,  also  occur  (see  the  edition  of  B.  Fabricius, 
pp.  42  and  90);  but  murrinos  merits  preference. 

^ F.  Thiersch,  1.  c.,  p.  457. 

’ Dictionary  of  the  Living  Great-Russian  Language,  Vol.  II,  col.  939  (in  Russian 
only) . 

* The  accent  after  m is  intended  to  express  the  palatalization  of  the  labial  nasal 
m (soft  or  mouille  m.) 


126 


Beginnings  or  Porcelain 


meaning  “small  shells”  or  “glass  beads.’’^  The  conjecture  is  therefore 
admissible,  that  Greek  morrion  (aside  from  its  Greek  ending)  is  an 
Iranian  loan-word,  and  that  the  Iranian  prototype  had  the  significance 
“glass  paste,  glaze.” ^ 

The  earliest  author  to  speak  of  murrine  vessels  is  the  poet  Propertius 
(born  about  49  b.c.),  in  one  of  his  elegies  (IV,  5,  26),  in  which  a pro- 
curess tries  to  allure  an  inexperienced  lass  by  promising  her  all  the 
wealth  of  the  Orient,  like  purple  robes,  dresses  from  Cos,  urns  from 
Thebse  in  upper  Egypt,  and  murrine  goblets  baked  in  Parthian  fur- 
naces,— 

Seu  quae  palmiferae  mittunt  venalia  Thebae 
murreaque  in  Parthis  pocula  cocta  focis. 

The  most  biased  adherents  of  the  mineralogical  hypothesis  were  obliged 
to  concede  that  mineral  vessels  could  not  be  understood  in  this  pas- 
sage : no  one  would  be  likely  to  say  regarding  a mineral  that  it  is  cooked 
or  baked.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  press  the  verb  coquere  into  a forced 


1 The  Persian  word  mind  signifies  "enamel”  and  “glass,  glass  bead,  goblet.” 
It  is  very  probably  connected  with  Young- Avestan  minav,  “necklace,  ornament” 
(Bartholomae,  Altiranisches  Worterbuch,  col.  1186).  The  Persian  morl  (“glass 
bead”)  is  found  also  in  the  language  of  the  Abdal  or  Tabarji  in  northern  Syria 
(A.  VON  Le  Coq,  Baessler-Archiv,  Vol.  II,  1912,  p.  234). 

“ Also  the  Russian  designation  for  Chinese  porcelain,  farfor,  is  derived  from 
Iranian.  In  the  allied  Slavic  languages  we  have  Ruthenian  faifurka,  Bulgarian 
farfor  and  farforiya,  Polish  farfura  (in  dialects  faifura;  farfurka,  farforka,  and  faforka 
with  the  meaning  “vessel,  plate  of  stoneware”).  The  same  word  is  found  in  Neo- 
Greek  as  farfuri  {<t>dp<i)ovpi)  and  in  the  same  form  in  Osmanli  (in  other  Turkish 
dialects,  farfuru:  W.  Radloff,  Worterbuch  der  Ttirk-Dialecte,  Vol.  IV,  col.  1914). 
The  Russian  lexicographer  Dal  is  unable  to  account  for  the  Russian  word,  and 
doubtfully  refers  it  to  a Turkish  source  of  origin.  E.  Berneker  (Slavisches  etymo- 
logisches  Worterbuch,  p.  279)  proposes  to  derive  the  Slavic  words  from  Osmanli 
fag  fur,  which  means  “title  of  the  Chinese  sovereign;  name  of  a region  in  China 
which  was  celebrated  for  its  porcelain;  Chinese  porcelain;  porcelain  in  general, 
vases  made  from  it.”  It  must  be  understood,  however,  that  this  word  is  not  Turkish 
in  origin,  but  Persian,  and  was  borrowed  by  the  Osmans  from  the  latter  language. 
For  a long  time  we  have  known  that  fagfur  is  the  Persian  term  designating  the 
Emperor  of  China  (d’Herbelot,  Bibliotheque  orientale,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  320),  and  it 
was  d’Herbelot  who  first  pointed  out  that  the  Turkish  name  for  porcelain,  fagfuri, 
was  adopted  from  the  Persian  title  fagfur  (see  also  Yule’s  Marco  Polo,  Vol.  II, 
p.  148).  The  older  form  is  pakpur  or  pakur  (in  the  form  Pakurios  preserved  by 
Procopius,  the  Byzantine  historian  of  the  sixth  century,  in  his  De  bello  persico,  i,  5). 
Masudi  (translation  of  A.  Sprenger,  Vol.  I,  p.  326)  was  familiar  with  the  correct 
significance  of  the  term,  explaining  it  as  “Son  of  Heaven.”  It  is  accordingly  a 
literal  rendering  of  the  Chinese  title  T'ien-tse  (“Son  of  Heaven”),  claimed  by  the 
sovereigns  of  China  since  times  of  old,  the  ruler  receiving  his  mandate  from  the 
supreme  deity  Heaven  and  governing  the  world  in  his  name.  Persian  fag  is  evolved 
from  bagh  (corresponding  to  Sanskrit  bhaga),  and  signifies  “God”  (“Bagdad” 
signifies  “gift  of  God”);  Persian /wr,  bur  (Sanskrit  putra)  means  “son.”  Also  in 
Persian,  fagfuri  chlnl  and  fagfuri  relate  to  Chinese  porcelain. 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China 


127 


meaning,  so  as  to  conform  it  with  a process  to  which  a mineral  could 
be  subjected;  for,  as  has  been  shown  by  H.  Blumner,i  it  is  the  verb 
utilized  in  regard  to  the  burning  or  baking  of  bricks  and  all  fictile  ware 
in  general. 

The  fundamental  passage  in  Pliny  relative  to  the  murrine  vessels 
runs  as  follows; — 

“The  Orient  sends  the  murrine  vessels.  They  are  found  there  in 
several  localities  which  otherwise  have  no  special  reputation,^  for 
the  most  part  in  places  of  the  Parthian  Empire;  excellent  ones,  how- 
ever, in  Carmania.  The  opinion  prevails  that  the  humidity^  con- 
tained in  these  vessels  is  solidified  by  subterranean  heat.  In  size 
they  never  exceed  the  small  sideboards  {abaci)]  in  thickness,  rarely 
the  drinking-vessels,  which  are  as  large  as  previously  mentioned. 
Their  brightness  is  not  very  powerful,  and  it  is  a lustre  rather  than 
brilliancy.  Higlily  esteemed,  however,  is  the  variety  of  colors,  with 
their  spots  changing  into  shades  of  purple  and  white;  these  two  tinges, 
again,  result  in  a third  hue  resplendent,  through  a sort  of  color-transi- 
tion, as  it  were,  in  a purple  or  milky  red.  Some  laud  profusely  in 
them  the  edges  and  a certain  iridescence  of  the  colors,  such  as  are 
visible  in  the  rainbow.  Others  are  pleased  by  oily  spots:  translucency 
or  pallor  is  a defect,  and  likewise  are  salt  grains  and  warts,  which  are 
not  projecting,  but  which,  as  in  the  human  body,  are  depressed.  Also 
their  odor  is  commendable.”^ 

The  account  of  Pliny  is  vague.  One  point  is  conspicuous  and  quite 
certain,  that  he  had  no  opinion  of  his  owti  to  offer  on  the  subject.  As 
illustrated  by  the  application  of  such  phrases  as  “putant,  sunt  qui, 
aliis  placent,”  he  simply  reiterates  second-hand  information  which  he 
had  picked  up  from  unnamed  sources,  most  probably  from  oral  accounts 
circulated  by  traders  in  the  article.  Most  likely,  these  stories  were 


1 Technologie  und  Terminologie,  Vol.  II,  pp.  19,  44. 

^ Or,  in  little-known  localities. 

’ There  is  no  reason  to  take  the  word  umor,  as  has  been  done,  in  the  sense  of 
“moist  substance.” 

■*  Oriens  myrrhina  mittit.  Inveniuntur  ibi  pluribus  locis  nec  insignibus,  maxime 
Parthici  regni,  praecipua  tamen  in  Carmania.  Umorem  sub  terra  putant  calore 
densari.  Amplitudine  numquam  parvos  excedunt  abacos,  crassitudine  raro  quanta 
sunt  potoria.  Splendor  est  iis  sine  viribus  nitorque  verius  quam  splendor.  Sed  in 
pretio  varietas  colorum  subinde  circumagentibus  se  maculis  in  purpuram  can- 
doremque  et  tertium  ex  utroque,  ignescente  veluti  per  transitum  coloris  purpura 
aut  rubescente  lacteo.  Sunt  qui  maxime  in  iis  laudent  extremitates  et  quosdam 
colorum  repercussus,  quales  in  caelesti  arcu  spectantur.  lam  aliis  maculae  pingues 
placent  — tralucere  quicquam  aut  pallere  vitium  est  — itemque  sales  verrucaeque 
non  eminentes,  sed,  ut  in  corpore  etiam,  plerumque  sessiles.  Aliqua  et  in  odore 
commendatio  est  (xxxvn,  8,  §§  21,  22). 


128 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


directly  imported  from  the  Orient,  together  with  the  ware.  This 
assumption  is  a necessary  postulate  in  the  case;  and  it  is  evident  also 
that  Pliny  was  ignorant  of  the  real  nature  of  the  murrines,  for  he  neg- 
lects to  state  what  their  actual  character  was.  He  fails  to  give  a plain 
and  matter-of-fact  definition  of  the  material,  or  to  classify  it  in  any 
known  category  of  objects.  True  it  is,  he  placed  his  article  in  his  book 
on  stones;  but  this  only  justifies  us  in  concluding  that  Pliny  regarded 
the  murrine  vases  as  possibly  of  stone,  but  not  that  they  really  were 
of  stone.  The  opponents  of  the  pottery  theory  forget  that  pottery 
is  composed  also  of  mineral  substances,  that  we  ourselves  speak  of 
stoneware,  and  that  many  a piece  of  stoneware  is  so  hard  that  it  is 
difficult  enough  to  distinguish  it  from  stone.  Pliny  must  have  been 
in  the  same  quandary,  and  therefore  did  not  commit  himself  to  a frank 
utterance.  This  attitude  of  restraint  is  conclusive,  and  at  the  outset 
is  conducive  to  two  inferences.  The  substance  murra  was  neither  a 
mineral  nor  pure  glass,  for  both  were  perfectly  familiar  to  Pliny  and 
his  contemporaries.  Why,  if  the  murra  plainly  was  of  a mineral  nature, 
should  the  learned  and  experienced  naturalist  not  have  unequivocally 
avowed  this  fact?  The  murra  can  have  been  but  a most  striking  and 
novel  material,  which  heretofore  had  been  foreign  to  the  Romans,  and 
which,  owing  to  the  very  novelty  of  its  character,  greatly  puzzled  them. 

Pliny  discusses  in  this  chapter  the  murrine  vessels,  as  they  were 
sent  to  Rome  from  the  Orient,  in  the  shape  of  manufactured  articles. 
In  the  preceding  chapter  he  dilates  on  their  first  introduction  and 
their  excessive  valuation,  and  tells  of  renowned  individual  cups.  Natu- 
rally he  is  now  bound  to  say  what  these  sensational  and  luxurious 
objects  looked  like.  He  certainly  does  not  intend  to  describe  here  the 
substance  murra,  alleged  by  some  interpreters  to  have  been  a species 
of  stone.  The  same  interpreters,  however,  are  agreed  that  in  Chapter  7 
the  word  myrrhina  (eadem  victoria  primum  in  urbem  myrrhina  invexit) 
refers  to  murrine  vessels,  and  not  to  the  mineral  of  which  they  are 
alleged  to  have  been  made;  and  it  is  therefore  obvious,  also,  that  in 
the  beginning  of  Chapter  8 the  same  word,  myrrhina,  must  refer  to 
exactly  the  same  murrine  vessels.  Pliny  means  to  convey  the  mean- 
ing that  the  murrine  vessels  came  to  Rome  from  the  East.  According 
to  Thiersch,  it  was  not  the  vessels,  but  the  mineral,  which  was  im- 
ported; but  unfortunately  he  fails  to  inform  us  where  and  how  the 
mineral  was  wrought.  Pliny  does  not  say  that  the  vessels  were  carved 
in  Rome  from  an  imported  substance,  but  he  does  plainly  state  that 
they  were  first  brought  to  the  metropolis  by  Pompey.  Thiersch^ 


’ L.  c.,  p.  471. 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China 


129 


sets  forth  the  opinion  that  Pliny  opens  the  description  of  the  “mineral” 
by  speaking  of  its  size  and  thickness,  then  passes  on  to  the  description 
of  the  surface,  its  brightness,  its  colors  and  their  play,  and  winds  up 
with  remarks  on  the  properties  of  the  mass.  It  would  be  impossible 
to  unite  more  absurdities  in  a single  sentence.  The  dimensions,  accord- 
ing to  Thiersch,  are  exactly  stated  by  the  terms  amplitudo  and  cras- 
siitido;  and  the  murra  was  a mineral,  and,  as  Thiersch  insists,  fluor- 
spar. This  mineral,  consequently,  was  quarried  in  regular  blocks  of 
constantly  equal  dimensions, — a really  astounding  feat!  Fluor-spar 
or  fluorite  crystallizes  in  the  isometric  system,  commonly  in  simple 
cubes;  this  fact  could  not  have  escaped  Pliny,  had  he  ever  had  an 
opportunity  of  examining  this  mineral,  which  is  not  at  all  mentioned 
by  him  nor  by  any  other  ancient  writer.^  There  is,  moreover,  no 
evidence  that  fluor-spar  occurs  in  Persia,  where  the  murrine  vessels 
were  made.  There  is  no  evidence  that  fluor-spar  vessels  were  ever 
turned  out  in  Persia,  and,  above  all,  no  such  vessels  have  ever  come 
to  light  among  classical  antiquities.  They  did  not  survive,  because 
they  never  existed,  save  in  the  imagination  of  nineteenth  century 
writers.^  But  does  our  Pliny,  indeed,  speak  of  any  mineral?  There 


1 See  this  volume,  p.  62. 

^ Thiersch  himself  is  not  the  originator  of  this  fancy.  He  attributes  (p.  495) 
the  germ  of  the  idea  to  an  English  scholar  signing  himself  “A.  M.”  in  the  Classical 
Journal  of  1810  (p.  472),  who,  after  having  seen  vases  carved  from  fluor-spar  of 
Derbyshire  in  his  time,  persuaded  himself  that  the  murrine  cups  should  have  been 
composed  of  the  same  material, — an  opinion  presented  without  an  iota  of  evidence. 
According  to  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica  (Vol.  X,  p.  578),  F.  Corsi,  the  eminent 
Itahan  antiquary,  held  that  fluor-spar  was  the  material  of  the  famous  murrine 
vases;  Corsi,  however,  followed  Thiersch.  H.  Blumner  (Technologic,  Vol.  Ill, 
p.  276),  reviewing  the  various  opinions,  observes  that  this  theory  has  recently  been 
strongly  contested;  he  himself  believes  in  the  mineral  character  of  the  vessels,  for 
which  weak  arguments  are  given.  It  is  astounding  with  what  high  degree  of  tenacity 
the  unfounded  opinion  of  fluor-spar  vessels  could  hold  its  position  in  the  face  of  the 
bare  fact  that  no  such  vessels  ever  existed  in  ancient  Persia,  Egypt,  or  in  classical 
antiquity,  and  have  never  come  to  light.  Guhl  and  Koner  (Leben  der  Griechen 
und  Romer,  p.  699,  6th  ed.,  1893)  adhere  to  this  explanation,  and,  while  admitting 
that  we  do  not  possess  vessels  which  can  positively  be  identified  with  murrines, 
point  to  a semi-transparent  bowl  found  in  Tyrol  in  1837,  which  should  probably  be 
one.  This  supposition,  however,  conflicts  with  the  fact  that  the  murrines  were 
not  at  all  transparent,  as  shown  by  a distich  of  Martial  (iv,  86):  Nos  bibimus  vitro; 
tu  murra,  Pontice:  quare!  prodat  perspicuus  ne  duo  vina  calix.  In  the  Century 
Dictionary  it  is  justly  remarked  under  “murra,”  “The  principal  objection  to  this 
theory  is  that  no  fragments  of  fluor-spar  vases  have  been  found  in  Rome  or  its 
vicinity.”  M.  Bauer  (Edelsteinkunde,  2d  ed.,  p.  653)  sensibly  states  that  there 
is  no  positive  and  sufficient  evidence  for  the  allegation  that  the  murrines  were  of 
fluor-spar;  but  neither  is  there  any  more  evidence  for  his  own  opinion,  that  they 
may  have  been  of  chalcedony  quarried  in  Ujjain  in  India.  E.  Babelon  (in  Darem- 
berg  and  Saglio,  Dictionnaire  des  antiquites  grecques  et  romaines,  Vol.  II,  p.  1466) 
says,  “Nous  ne  savons  pas  sfirement  ce  qu’etait  cette  mati&re  precieuse  qui  servait 


130 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


is  no  sense  in  speaking  of  dimensions  with  reference  to  a raw  mineral. 
Certainly  nobody  would  compare  the  size  of  a mineral  with  a piece  of 
furniture,  and  its  thickness  with  a drinking-cup.  The  use  of  the 
word  potoria  demonstrates  that  our  author,  alluding  to  the  costly 
vessels  mentioned  in  the  previous  chapter,  understands  drinking- 
vessels  likewise  in  this  passage. 

Any  one  who  has  had  any  experience  in  reading  Chinese  texts 
relative  to  pottery  or  porcelain  will  be  deeply  struck  by  a certain 
kinship  or  affinity  of  terminology  that  prevails  in  the  latter  and  in  the 
Plinian  tradition  of  murrines.  No,  statement  or  attribute  used  in 
this  text  contradicts  the  opinion  that  ceramic  stoneware  is  here  in 
question.  On  the  contrary,  some  words,  indeed,  are  as  well  chosen 
as  though  they  were  directly  derived  from  a ceramist’s  vocabulary, 
and  are  well  apt  to  uphold  my  theory.  The  effect  of  the  changing 
colors  produced  by  the  heavy  glaze  could  not  be  better  described  than 
by  Pliny’s  style.  Every  lover  of  Chinese  pottery  who  reads  this  pas- 
sage intelligently  will  confess  that  he  has  many  times  had  this  delightful 
experience  of  observing  color  changes  and  transitions,  as  well  as  the 
rainbow  iridescence  which  we  so  greatly  admire  in  the  ceramic  pro- 
ductions of  the  Han.  Translucency  as  a defect  is  intelligible  only  in 
pottery:  it  refers  to  a thin  glaze  that  allows  of  the  transparency  of 
the  clay  body.  “Oily  spots”  {maculae  pingues)  is  a felicitous  ceramic 
expression;  likewise  is  “salt  grains  and  warts.” ^ 


h fabriquer  les  celebres  vases  murrhins.  La  description  quelque  peu  obscure  que 
Pline  donne  des  vases  murrhins  . . . est  entremfelee  de  fables  et  elle  ne  s'adapte 
parfaitement  bien  ni  h des  coupes  d’agate  ou  de  sardonyx,  ni  a des  coupes  d’ambre 
ou  de  p&tes  vitreuses,  ni  enfin  a des  coupes  de  jade,  comme  le  pensent  quelques 
critiques.”  Leaving  aside  the  vitreous  pastes,  this  statement  is  perfectly  fair. — 
L.  DE  Launay  (Min^ralogie  des  Anciens,  Vol.  I,  p.  85)  quotes  a writer  on  onyx  as 
saying,  that,  despite  the  similarity  of  descriptions,  the  murrines  were  not  of  onyx 
or  sardonyx;  "Si  I’une  ou  I’autre  de  ces  pierres  avait  6t6  le  murrhinum,  les  Anciens 
auraient  certainement  donnd  aux  vases  murrhiens,  le  nom  de  vases  d’onyx  ou  de 
sardonyx,  au  lieu  qu’ils  ont  distingud  express6ment  les  vases  murrhiens  d’avec 
ceux  faits  de  I'une,  ou  de  I’autre  des  pierres  susdites.”  “The  onyx  has  been  proposed, 
but  our  authorities  plainly  imply  that  the  onyx  was  a material  akin  to  but  yet  dis- 
tinct from  that  here  in  question”  (W.  Smith,  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman 
Antiquities,  Vol.  II,  p.  182).  Other  speculations  in  regard  to  the  murrines  were 
advanced,  to  the  effect  that  they  were  made  of  a gum,  or  formed  from  shells.  Others 
referred  to  obsidian.  Veltheim  proposed  Chinese  soapstone.  “No  mineral  has  been 
suggested  which  answers  exactly  to  Pliny’s  description,  and  at  present  the  problem 
is  unsolved”  (Smith,  1.  c.), — sufficient  reason  for  assuming  that  Pliny’s  description 
does  not  answer  to  any  mineral. 

1 The  sales  (this  is  the  only  passage  in  Pliny  where  sal  is  used  in  the  plural) 
were  presumably  identical  with  what  the  Chinese  ceramists  praise  in  the  Ting  porce- 
lain of  the  Sung  period,  which  exhibited  vestiges  of  tears  (Julien,  Histoire,  p.  61); 
those  with  tear-marks  were  even  considered  as  genuine  (Eitel,  China  Review, 
Vol.  X,  p.  311,  and  Vol.  XI,  p.  177;  Hirth,  Ancient  Chinese  Porcelain,  p.  141). 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China  13  i 

As  regards  the  pleasant  odor  which  Pliny  accredits  to  the  murrines, 
this  is  intelligible  only  if  the  question  is  of  pottery;  scented  minerals 
or  glass  are  not  conceivable.  We  are  informed  by  Atheneeus  (XI, 
p.  464  b)  that  the  clay  in  the  ceramic  export-ware  of  Koptos  in  Egypt 
was  blended  with  aromatics  before  the  process  of  baking;  and  Aristotle 
follows  him  in  this  account.  In  the  Greek  papyri  of  the  second  cen- 
tury A.D.  are  mentioned  fragrant  vessels  {evudrj  Kepa/xta)  which  were 
possibly  turned  out  in  this  manner.^ 

In  the  two  chapters  following  the  one  in  question,  Pliny  deals  with 
crystal:  the  introductory  sentence  contains  a reference  to  the  mur- 
rines. He  adopts  the  popular  notion  that  crystal  is  a sort  of  petrified  ice, 
and  occurs  only  in  cold  regions  where  the  winter  snow  freezes  intensely.^ 
A cause  opposite  to  the  one  producing  the  murrines,  accordingly,  makes 
crystal  which  assumes  form  through  a process  of  somewhat  vehement 
congelation.^  This  observation  hints  at  the  previous  sentence,  “Umor- 
em  sub  terra  putant  calore  densari.”  The  murrines  are  a product  of 
heat,  crystal  is  that  of  cold.  This  remark  shows  that  murrines  and 
crystals  are  not  allied,  but  adverse  substances;  and  this  contrast  be- 
lieved to  prevail  between  the  two  may  be  one  of  the  reasons  why  they 
formed  a favorite  compound  of  speech. 

Passing  on  to  a discussion  of  amber,  our  author  informs  us  that 
this  natural  product  takes  rank  next  among  articles  of  luxury,  though 
the  demand  for  it  is  restricted  to  women,  and  is  held  in  the  same  regard 
as  precious  stones;  but  whereas  no  evident  reason  can  be  conceived  for 
this  appreciation  of  amber,  the  reason  is  manifest  for  the  two  former 
substances,  the  crystal  vases  lending  themselves  to  cold  beverages, 
the  murrine  vases  to  hot  and  cold  ones  alike.'* *  The  former  notion 


* T.  Reil,  Beitrage  zur  Kenntnis  des  Gewerbes  im  hellenistischen  Agypten, 
p.  41  (Leipzig,  1913).  A reddish,  odoriferous  clay  (Portuguese  and  Spanish  bucaro, 
Italian  bucchero)  was  much  in  use  for  pottery  during  the  eighteenth  century. 

* This  does  not  restrain  him  from  stating  immediately  that  the  Orient  sends 
crystal,  and  that  none  is  preferred  to  that  of  India.  The  Buddhist  monk  Yuan 
Ying  (Yi  ts'ie  king  yin  i,  Ch.  22,  p.  2;  see  above,  p.  115)  was  more  discriminative  on 
this  point.  Speaking  of  rock-crystal,  and  mentioning  the  theory  that  it  should 
originate  from  ice  a thousand  years  old,  he  points  out  that  there  is  no  ice  in  the 
scorching  heat  of  India,  and  that  accordingly  Indian  rock-crystal  is  not  a transforma- 
tion of  ice,  but  merely  a kind  of  stone.  See  also  T'oung  Pao,  1915,  p.  190. 

* Contraria  huic  causa  crystallum  facit,  gelu  vehementiore  concreto  (xxxvii,  9, 

§ 23). 

* Proximum  locum  in  deliciis,  feminarum  tamen  adhuc  tantum,  sucina  optinent, 
eandemque  omnia  haec  quam  gemmae  auctoritatem ; sane  priora  ilia  aliquis  de 
causis,  crystallina  frigido  potu,  myrrhina  utroque;  in  sucinis  causam  ne  deliciae 
quidem  adhuc  excogitare  potuemnt  (xxxvii,  ii,  § 30).  Compare  J.  H.  Krause, 
Pyrgoteles,  p.  90.  The  passage  is  somewhat  equivocal,  owing  to  the  uncertainty 
as  to  what  omnia  haec  is  intended  to  refer.  It  may  point  to  the  various  kinds  of 


132 


Beginnings  or  Porcelain 


directly  resiilts  from  the  supposed  cold  nature  of  crystal;  and  murra, 
being  the  outcome  of  heat,  must  be  well  adapted  for  holding  hot  drinks, 
or,  as  the  case  may  be,  for  cool  liquids.  The  distinction  here  made 
by  PHny  seems  to  me  to  add  another  weight  of  proof  adverse  to  the 
opinion  that  the  murrines  were  of  stone;  it  is  not  probable,  at  least, 
that  any  stone  cups  served  for  hot  beverages,  while  pottery,  and  heavily 
glazed  pottery  in  particular,  is  a material  well  suited  to  such  a purpose. 

Aside  from  the  main  chapter,  Pliny  devotes  a brief  sentence  to  the 
subject  (XXXIII,  2,  § 5),  in  his  notice  on  gold,  by  saying  that  “from 
the  same  earth  [where  gold  and  silver  are  mined]  we  dug  up  murrine 
and  crystal  vessels,  the  very  fragility  of  which  is  deemed  to  enhance 
their  price”  (murrina  ex  eadem  tellure  et  crystallina  effodimus,  quibus 
pretium  faceret  ipsa  fraghitas) . The  passage  has  materially  contributed 
to  the  notion  that  murra,  in  the  same  manner  as  crystal,  should 
be  a natural  substance  extracted  from  under  the  ground.  “Here,” 
F.  Thiersch  (p.  460)  remarks,  “crystallina  evidently  does  not  mean 
crj'stal  bowls  and  cups,  since  the  latter  are  not  dug  out  of  the  soil, 
but  crystal  masses  from  which  they  are  made;  and  for  this  reason  the 
parallelism  of  the  words  murrina  et  crystallina,  as  well  as  the  application 
of  ejffodere  and  invenire,  compel  us  to  assume  that  murrina  is  likewise 
used  in  Pliny  with  regard  to  the  substance  of  the  vessels,  the  murra; 
and  Pliny  means  to  say  that  the  murra,  in  the  same  manner  as  crystal, 
is  found  beneath  the  earth  and  dug  up.”  This  conclusion  is  artificial, 
and  by  no  means  cogent.  We  all  know  that  not  only  minerals,  but 
also  objects  manufactured  by  human  hand,  are  dug  up  from  the  soil; 
and  there  seems  no  valid  objection  why  Pliny’s  words  could  not  be 
construed  to  mean  that  murrine  and  crystal  vases  have  been  turned 
up  from  the  soil  as  the  result  of  excavations.  This  was  not  neces- 
sarily Pliny’s  own  opinion,  but  it  may  have  been  the  outcome  of  a 
story  transplanted  directly  from  the  Orient;  and  in  part  this  report 
may  well  have  had  a foundation  in  fact.  The  passage  may  signify 
also  that  the  mineral  substances  employed  in  the  manufacture  of  the 
murra  were  dug  up  from  the  soil.  It  must  be  directly  connected  with 
the  sentence,  “Umorem  sub  terra  putant  calore  densari,”  discussed 
above.  The  pottery  vessels  were  baked  in  an  underground  kiln, 

amber,  as  has  been  translated  above;  or  to  the  previously  mentioned  murrines 
and  crystals,  with  the  inclusion  of  amber.  The  following  priora  ilia  would  seem 
strongly  to  favor  the  latter  point  of  view.  In  that  case,  Pliny  would  say  that  mur- 
rines, crystal,  and  amber  enjoy  the  same  consideration  or  esteem  as  precious  stones. 
It  cannot  be  read,  of  course,  into  this  context,  that  the  three  materials  were  classified 
among  gemmae,  and  that  for  this  reason  murra  was  a precious  stone;  on  the  con- 
trary, the  passage  means  that  this  in  fact  was  not  the  case,  and  only  that  the  three 
were  regarded  as  of  the  same  value  as  precious  stones. 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China 


133 


where  the  humidity  of  the  clayish  substance  was  solidified  by  artificial 
heat,  and  thus  they  were  extracted  from  the  soil  (e  tellure  effodimus); 
or  the  vessels,  after  being  perfectly  finished,  were  intentionally  buried 
under  ground  to  produce  an  oxidation  of  the  glaze,  which  resulted  in 
that  well-known  iridescence  and  the  rainbow  colors  accentuated  by 
Pliny.  Much  ado  has  been  made  by  the  adherents  of  the  mineralogical 
hypothesis  about  the  juxtaposition  of  murrine  and  crystal  vases  in  the 
relevant  passage  and  in  another  to  be  cited  presently:  this  fact  has 
been  regarded  as  one  of  the  strongest  bulwarks  of  the  mineralogical 
defence,  which,  however,  is  purely  illusory.  The  union  of  the  two 
products,  previously  alluded  to,  was  mainly  dictated  by  commercial 
considerations,  since  both  were  received  from  the  Orient:  this  is  the 
opinion  of  Pliny,  and  no  other  motive  guided  him  in  the  choice  of  this 
expression.  On  concluding  his  chapter  devoted  to  the  murrine  vases, 
he  passes  on  to  the  topic  of  crystal,  and  notes  that  “the  Orient  likewise 
sends  us  crystal,  that  of  India  being  preferred,  and  it  originates  like- 
wise in  Asia.”^  The  clause  “oriens  et  hanc  mittit,”  owing  to  the  addi- 
tion of  the  particle  “et,”  forcibly  points  to  the  beginning  of  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  “Oriens  myrrhina  mittit.”  For  the  reason  that  the 
Orient  despatched  murrine  as  well  as  crystal  vessels,  they  were  enumer- 
ated and  discoursed  in  close  succession  and  combined  in  speech  into  a 
compound  of  pleasing  rhythm.  There  is  no  valid  reason  why  we 
should  conclude,  that,  because  the  names  of  the  two  products  are 
allied,  the  murrine  vases  must  have  been  of  mineral  character.^  Similar 
compounds  are  found  in  all  languages  without  giving  rise  to  such 
forced  conclusions.  We  are  wont  to  speak  of  the  tea  and  porcelain 
of  China  as  the  most  characteristic  products  reaching  us  from  that 
country;  but  no  one  means  to  imply  that  tea  must  be  a substance 
related  to  porcelain,  or  that  porcelain  must  be  a kind  of  tea.  The 
Chinese  couple  jade  with  porcelain  to  denote  objets  de  vertu  worthy  of 
the  collector,  and  the  substances  with  which  both  are  concerned  are 
as  congenial  as  murrines  and  crystal.  And  who  will  guarantee  that 
the  cr}^stal  vases  shipped  from  the  Orient,  according  to  Pliny,  were  all 
of  real  rock-crystal?  They  may  have  been  partially  of  glass  as  well.* 
The  price  of  the  murrines  was  enhanced  by  their  frailty, — again 
an  attribute  that  thoroughly  fits  pottery,  and  most  assuredly  is  not 


1 Oriens  et  hanc  mittit,  quoniam  Indicae  nulla  praefertur;  nascitur  et  in  Asia 
(xxxvii,  9,  § 23). 

^ We  shall  meet  the  same  alliance  in  the  Chinese  texts  relative  to  the  Hellenistic 
Orient,  where  crystal  (including  also  cut  glass)  and  faience  were  closely  joined  in 
architecture. 

® H.  Blumner,  Technologie,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  250,  note  6. 


134 


Beginnings  oe  Porcelain 


applicable  to  agate,  fluor-spar,  or  any  other  stone  with  which  these 
vessels  have  thoughtlessly  been  identified.  The  murrines  were  fragile 
and  delicate:  Pliny  adduces  several  examples  testifying  to  this  fact. 
A man  of  consular  rank  used  to  drink  from  a murrine  cup,  and,  from 
sheer  love  of  it,  wore  out  its  edge,  resulting  in  an  upward  tendency  of 
its  value.  This  good  man  surely  did  not  possess  iron  teeth  to  break 
through  an  agate  or  onyx  cup.  Pliny  himself  beheld  the  broken  frag- 
ments of  a single  cup,  and  tells  the  story  of  T.  Petronius,  who,  on  the 
verge  of  death  from  his  hatred  of  Nero,  broke  a murrine  basin^  of 
great  value.  In  another  passage  Pliny  observes,  “With  all  our  wealth, 
we  even  at  present  pour  out  libations  at  sacrifices,  not  from  murrine 
or  crystalline  vessels,  but  from  plain  earthenware  ladles.”^  This 
sentence  occurs  in  the  introductory  part  of  a chapter  dealing  with 
works  in  pottery;  and  the  contrast  intended  by  the  author  between 
the  rustic,  unglazed,  indigenous  Italic  earthenware  and  the  pretentious, 
glazed,  imported  Oriental  pottery  is  self-evident.  The  same  discrimi- 
nation is  insisted  on  in  the  further  discussion  of  the  subject  when  Pliny, 
expanding  on  the  exorbitant  prices  paid  for  fictiles,  laments  that  luxury 
has  arrived  at  such  a height  of  excess  as  to  make  earthenware  sell  at 
higher  rates  than  murrine  vessels.®  This  comparison  cannot  be  con- 
strued, as  has  been  done  by  Thiersch,^  as  favoring  the  opinion  that 
the  murrhina  were  fundamentally  different  from  fictilia,  but  it  is  intel- 
ligible only  when  both  were  productions  of  a cognate  nature. 

Finally,  Pliny  enumerates  murrines  among  the  most  valuable 
products  derived  from  the  interior  of  the  earth,  on  a par  with  adamas 
(the  diamond),  smaragdus,  and  precious  stones.®  H.  Blumner®  re- 
gards this  text  as  furnishing  strong  evidence  in  favor  of  the  murrines 
being  stones.  In  my  opinion  it  is  of  no  consequence.  Also  the  passage 
relating  to  white  glass  in  imitation  of  murrines^  is  unimportant  for 
our  purpose;  but  it  proves  at  least  that  the  real  murrines  cannot  have 
been  piuely  of  glass,  as  has  been  supposed  by  some  authors. 


‘ Trulla  myrrhina,  explained  also  as  a ladle  or  scoop. 

* In  sacris  quidem  etiam  inter  has  opes  hodie  non  murrinis  crystallinisve,  sed 
fictilibus  prolibatur  simpulis  (xxxv,  46,  § 158). 

’ Eo  pervenit  luxuria,  ut  etiam  fictilia  pluris  constant  quam  murrina  (ibid., 

§ 163). 

* L.  c.,  p.  470. 

'■  Rerum  autem  ipsarum  maximum  est  pretium  in  mari  nascentium  margaritis; 
extra  tellurem  crystallis,  intra  adamanti,  smaragdis,  gemmis,  myrrinis  (xxxvii,  78, 
§ 204). 

® Technologic,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  276. 

’’  Pliny,  xxxvi,  67,  § 198. 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China 


135 


Hitherto  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  extract  the  realities  from 
the  ancient  traditions,  and  to  interpret  them  without  prejudice.  It 
is  more  difficult  to  correctly  judge  the  legendary  ingredients  by  which 
they  are  incrusted,  as  we  are  unaware  of  the  lore  of  the  Orient  which 
prompted  such  notions  as  are  echoed  in  Pliny,  An  analogous  field, 
however,  might  contribute  a little  to  aid  us  in  understanding  some  of 
this  folk-lore.  Nothing  could  better  enlighten  Pliny’s  account  of 
murrines  than  a remembrance  of  the  first  experience  which  Europe  had 
in  regard  to  the  newly-introduced  Chinese  porcelain.  If  the  ancients 
were  deeply  impressed  and  perplexed  by  the  thickly  glazed  faience  of 
the  anterior  Orient,  and  may  have  mistaken  it  for  stone,  an  interesting 
parallel  is  offered  by  the  fact  that  in  the  inventory  of  the  Duke  of 
Anjou  (1360-68)  is  found  “une  escuelle  d’une  pierre  appel6e  pour- 
cellaine,”  and,  in  that  of  Queen  Jeanne  d’Evreux  (1372),  “un  pot  a 
eau  de  pierre  de  pourcelaine.”^  In  these  two  cases,  Chinese  porcelain 
(corresponding  to  that  of  the  Yuan  period,  1260-1367)  is  styled  “a 
stone  called  porcelain.” 

The  beliefs  of  the  ancients  in  an  underground  substance  from 
which  the  murrine  vessels  were  made,  receive  a curious  parallel  from 
the  fantastic  notions  entertained  by  early  European  writers  as  to 
the  composition  of  Chinese  porcelain.  Barbosa*  wrote  about  1516, 
“They  make  in  this  country  a great  quantity  of  porcelains  of  different 
sorts,  very  fine  and  good,  which  form  for  them  a great  article  of  trade 
for  all  parts,  and  they  make  them  in  this  way.  They  take  the  shells 
of  sea-snails,  and  egg-shells,  and  pound  them,  and  with  other  ingre- 
dients make  a paste,  which  they  put  underground  to  refine  for  the 
space  of  eighty  or  a hundred  years,  and  this  mass  of  paste  they  leave 
as  a fortune  to  their  children.”  In  1615,  Bacon  said,  “If  we  had  in 
England  beds  of  porcelain  such  as  they  have  in  China,  which  porcelain 
is  a kind  of  plaster  buried  in  the  earth  and  by  length  of  time  con- 
gealed and  glazed  into  that  substance;  this  were  an  artificial  mine, 
and  part  of  that  substance”  . . . Sir  Thomas  Browne,  in  his 

“Vulgar  Errors”  (1650),  asserted,  “We  are  not  thoroughly  resolved 
concerning  Porcellane  or  China  dishes,  that  according  to  common 
belief  they  are  made  of  earth,  which  lieth  in  preparation  about  an 
hundred  years  underground;  for  the  relations  thereof  are  not  only 
divers  but  contrary;  and  Authors  agree  not  herein”  . . . These 

fables  were  refuted  at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  cen- 
turies by  travellers  who  had  occasion  to  make  observations  on  the 


1 F.  Brinkley,  Japan  and  China,  Vol.  IX,  Keramic  Art,  p.  371  (London,  1904). 

2 Yule  and  Burnell,  Hobson-Jobson,  p.  726. 


136 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


spot.  Juan  Gonzalez  de  Mendoza/  who  wrote  in  1585,  reiterated 
Barbosa’s  story,  and  (in  the  early  English  translation)  called  its  valid- 
ity into  doubt;  for,  if  it  were  true,  the  Chinese,  in  his  opinion,  could 
not  turn  out  so  great  a number  of  porcelains  as  is  made  in  that  kingdom 
and  exported  to  Portugal,  Peru,  New  Spain,  and  other  parts  of  the 
world.* *  J.  Neuhof,*  who  accompanied  the  embassy  of  the  East  India 
Company  of  the  Netherlands  to  China  from  1655  to  1657,  scorns  the 
“foolish  fabulists  of  whom  there  are  not  a few  still  nowadays  who 
made  people  believe  that  porcelain  is  baked  from  egg-shells  poimded 
and  kneaded  into  a paste  with  the  white  of  an  egg,  or  from  shells  and 
snail-shells,  after  such  a paste  has  been  prepared  by  nature  itself  in 
the  ground  for  some  hundred  years.”  The  Jesuit,  L.  Le  Compte,* 
rectified  this  error  by  saying  that  “it  is  a mistake  to  think  that  there 
is  requisite  one  or  two  hvmdred  years  to  the  preparing  of  the  matter  for 
the  porcelain,  and  that  its  composition  is  so  very  difficult;  if  that  were 
so,  it  would  be  neither  so  common,  nor  so  cheap.”  These  two  authors 
were  seconded  by  E.  Ysbrants  Ides.®  The  analogy  of  the  beliefs  in  the 
origin  of  murrines  and  porcelain  is  striking;  and  this  fancy  has  doubtless 
taken  its  root  in  the  Orient,  whence  crafty  dealers  propagated  it  in  the 
interest  of  their  business.® 

It  would  be  presumptuous  on  my  part  to  state  positively  what  class 
of  Oriental  pottery  should  be  understood  by  the  murrines.  The  decision 
of  this  question  must  be  reserved  for  the  specialists  in  this  field.  Stu- 
dents of  ancient  ceramics  seem  to  have  already  had  a premonition  of 
the  identity  of  murrines  with  pottery.'^  It  may  be  permissible  to  point, 

1 History  of  the  Great  and  Mighty  Kingdom  of  China,  Vol.  I,  p.  34  (Hakluyt 
Society,  1853). 

* This  refutation  of  Mendoza,  however,  is  not  contained  in  the  Spanish  original, 
where  it  is  said  only,  “Y  esto  fe  a visto,  y es  mas  verosimil  que  lo  que  dize  cierto 
Duardo  Barbosa,  que  anda  en  Italiano,  que  se  haze  de  caracoles  de  mar,  los  quales 
se  muelen,  y los  meten  debaxo  de  tierra  a afinarse  100  anos,  y otras  cosas  que  agerca 
desto  dize.  La  muy  fina,  nunca  sale  del  Reyno,  por  que  se  gasta  en  seruicio  del 
Rey,  y Gouernadores,  y es  tan  linda  que  parece  de  finissimo  cristal.  La  mas  fina,  es 
la  que  se  haze  en  la  Prouincia  de  Saxij”  (I.  Gonzalez  de  Mendoca,  Historia  de 
las  cosas  mas  notables,  ritos  y costumbres,  del  gran  Reyno  dela  China,  p.  25,  Roma, 
1585).  Saxij  refers  to  Kuang-tung. 

® Gesantschaft  der  Ost-Indischen  Gesellschaft,  p.  96  (Amsterdam,  1669). 

* Memoirs  and  Observations  made  in  a Late  Journey  through  the  Empire  of 
China,  English  translation,  p.  158  (London,  1697). 

^ Driejaarige  Reize  naar  China,  p.  165  (Amsterdam,  1710). 

® E.  Kaempfer  (History  of  Japan,  Vol.  II,  p.  369)  alludes  to  another  superstition 
prevalent  in  his  time  (end  of  the  seventeenth  century),  that  human  bones  should 
form  an  ingredient  of  China  ware. 

’’  E.  Fourdrignier,  Les  Stapes  de  la  c^ramique  dans  l’antiquit6  {Bull,  et  Mem. 
de  la  Soc.  d’Anthr.,  1905,  p.  239);  he  gives  his  opinion  with  great  reserve,  however. 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China 


137 


en  passant,  to  a remarkable  find  of  pottery  which  offers  a fair  guaranty 
of  being  identical  with  the  murrine  vases. 

F.  Petrie’s  discovery  in  1909-10,  at  the  south  end  of  Memphis,  of 
kilns  for  baking  glazed  pottery,  with  a large  number  of  fragments  of 
vessels,  felicitously  fills  a gap  in  the  early  history  of  glazed  ware,  and 
speaks  in  favor  of  the  presence  on  Egyptian  soil  of  murrine  vessels, 
and  particularly  even  of  Parthian  murrine  vessels.  The  date  of  Petrie’s 
finds  is  calculated  at  a period  between  a.d.  i and  50,  a fragment  of  a 
lamp  of  known  type  permitting  this  conclusion.^  The  principal  tints 
of  the  glazed  shards,  which  are  remarkable  for  their  coloring  and  their 
design,  are  a deep  indigo  blue,  lighter  blues,  manganese  purple,  and 
apple  green.  The  designs  are  almost  entirely  Persian,  showing  little, 
if  any,  direct  Greek  influence.  Winged  bulls,  rampant  beasts, 
“sacred  tree,”  etc.,  all  occur;  and  the  problem  arises  whether  this 
Persian  character  points  to  some  Oriental  revival  of  the  art  of  making 
glazed  pottery.  In  Diospolis,  according  to  the  Periplus,^  murrines 
were  imitated  in  glass;  and  this  imitative  manufacture  presupposes 
the  existence  there  of  true  pottery  mturines  which  were  taken  as 
models.  The  Memphis  pottery  of  Persian  style  due  to  Petrie  per- 
fectly answers  this  purpose,  as  to  both  its  technical  properties  and 
its  chronology. 

Among  Greek  authors,  the  murrines  are  mentioned  only  by  Pau- 
sanias  and  the  Periplus.  Pausanias  (second  century  a.d.)  recalls 
them  merely  in  a passing  manner.  In  the  Arcadica  (XVIII,  § 5) 
he  speaks  of  “glass,  crystal,  murrine  vessels,  and  others  made  by  men 
from  stone.”®  The  idea  that  Pausanias  speaks  of  vessels  carv'ed  from 
stone  is  thorougWy  excluded;  he  hints,  on  the  contrary,  at  vessels 
turned  out  from  products  and  devices  of  human  labor.  “Crystal” 
is  probably  nothing  but  cut  glass;  the  union  of  the  terms  “crystal” 
and  “murra”  has  already  been  discussed.  “Glass”  indeed  belongs 
to  the  same  category  as  “murra;”  and  the  passage  of  Pausanias  is 
sanely  interpreted  by  the  rendering,  “glass,  cut  glass,  and  glazed 
pottery,  and  other  products  made  by  men  from  stone.” 

In  the  Periplus  Maris  Erythraei,  written  approximately  about 
A.D.  85,^  the  murrines  are  mentioned  in  three  passages.  In  Chapter  VI 


^ Compare  O.  M.  Dalton,  Byzantine  Art  and  Archasology,  p.  608. 

^ See  below,  and  p.  138. 

®‘'TaXos  fikv  ye  Kal  KpvaraWos  Kal  poppia  Kai  ocra  earlv  avOpuirois  dXXa  Xidou 
Toioiipeva. 

■'  Compare  the  writer's  Notes  on  Turquois  in  the  East,  p.  2,  note.  J.  Kennhdy 
(Journ.  Royal  As.  Soc.,  1916,  p.  835)  is  now  inclined  to  date  the  Periplus  at  about 
A.D.  70. 


138 


Beginnings  oe  Porcelain 


we  meet  “several  kinds  of  glass  and  other  murrine  vases,  which  are 
made  in  Diospolis.”^  The  latter  city  is  regarded  as  identical  with 
Thebae  in  upper  Egypt.  Here  the  substance  murra  is  designated  as  a 
kind  of  glass,  but  it  is  “another”  kind  of  glass,  different  from  ordinary 
glass.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that  it  denotes  here  the  vitreous 
paste  employed  for  the  glazing  of  pottery,  and  this  conclusion  per- 
fectly agrees  with  all  that  we  know  about  the  thriving  industries  of 
ceramics  and  glass  in  Egypt  of  that  period.^ 

Chapter  XLVIII  of  the  Periplus  mentions  the  trade  of  Ozene, — 
that  is,  Ujjayini  (Ujjain), — the  chief  city  of  Malva,  in  India,  whence 
onyx-like  and  murrine  stones®  are  brought  to  the  port  Barygaza  on 
the  west  coast.  In  the  following  chapter  it  is  stated  that  these  articles, 
among  others,  are  exported  from  Barygaza.  Again,  in  this  case,  we 
have  not  to  understand  by  the  murrine  material  a pm-e  mineral  of 
uniform  character,  but  an  artificial  composition  of  partially  mineral 
origin,  turned  to  glazing-purposes,  and  introduced  into  commerce  in  the 
shape  of  cakes,  which,  on  the  surface,  appeared  to  the  uninitiated  as  a 
mineral  substance  resembling  onyx.  The  Periplus  thus  opens  our  eyes 
to  the  fact  that  substances  for  glazing  were  traded  as  far  as  India,  and 
this  is  confirmed  both  by  Indian  traditions  and  by  the  Chinese  annals. 

The  Chinese,  indeed,  were  acquainted  with  the  murra  of  the  ancients; 
and  Chinese  records  point  in  the  same  manner  to  the  home  of  the  sub- 
stance,— the  anterior  Orient,  styled  by  them  Ta  Ts'in  (“Great  Ts'in”). 
The  glassy  paste  for  the  production  of  ceramic  glazes  was  called  liu-li 
yi  ^ (in  the  Han  Annals  life  M)  or  p'i-liu-U,  derived  from  Prakrit 
veluriya,  Maharashtrl  verulia  (Sanskrit  vaidurya).* *  The  Wei  lio, 


^AiOias  vdXrjs  Tr\eLova  yhrj  mi  aXXrjs  /xovppivrjs  rrjs  yivop.kvt]$  kv  Atoff7r6Xet 
(ed.  of  B.  Fabricius,  p.  42). 

^ Compare  T.  Reil,  Beitrage  zur  Kenntnis  des  Gewerbes  im  hellenistischen 
Agypten,  pp.  37-50.  The  mass  is  well  described  by  W.  M.  Flinders  Petrie 
(Arts  and  Crafts  of  Ancient  Egypt,  p.  117):  “Quartz  rock  pebbles  were  pounded 
into  fine  chips  after  many  heatings  which  cracked  them.  These  were  mixed  with 
lime  and  potash  and  some  carbonate  of  copper.  The  mixture  was  roasted  in  pans, 
and  the  exact  shade  depended  on  the  degree  of  roasting.  This  mass  was  half  fused 
and  became  pasty;  it  was  then  kneaded  and  toasted  gradually,  sampling  the  color 
until  the  exact  tint  was  reached.  A porous  mass  of  frit  of  uniform  color  results. 
This  was  then  ground  up  in  water,  and  made  into  a blue  or  green  paint,  which  was 
either  used  with  a flux  to  glaze  objects  in  a furnace,  or  was  used  with  gum  or  white 
of  egg  as  a wet  paint  for  frescoes.” 

® ’Opvxii'il  Xt0ta  mi  povppivr]. 

* Palladius  (Chinese-Russian  Dictionary,  Vol.  I,  p.  367),  our  foremost  authori- 
ty on  Chinese  lexicography,  has  given  as  the  principal  meaning  of  liu-li  “glaze” 
(Russian  glazur).  Several  writers  accept  the  term  liu-li  in  the  too  narrow  sense  of 
“glass”  only,  and  construe  a theory  that  quantities  of  glass  vessels  were  imported 
at  the  Han  time  from  the  workshops  of  Syria  and  Egypt  (for  instance,  S.  W.  Bushell, 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China 


139 


written  in  the  third  century  a.d.,  attributes  to  Ta  Ts'in  ten  varieties 
of  liu-li,- — carnation,  white,  black,  green,  yellow,  blue,  purple,  azure, 
red,  and  red-brownd  This  extensive  color-scale  shows  us  that  not  a 
precious  stone  is  involved  (and  with  reference  to  India  p'i-liu-li  or 
Im-li  may  well  denote  a variety  of  quartz  or  rock-crystal^),  but  an 
artificial,  man-made  product.  This  is  clearly  evidenced  by  other  texts, 
in  which  the  peculiar  utilization  of  liu-li  in  Ta  Ts'in  is  specified.  Thus 
we  are  informed  by  the  Tsin  Annals  that  the  people  of  Ta  Ts'in  use 
liu-li  in  the  making  of  walls,  and  rock-crystal  in  making  the  bases  of 
pillars.  The  Kiu  T'ang  shu  reports  that  eaves,  piUars,  and  window- 
bars  of  the  palaces  there  are  frequently  made  of  rock-crystal  and  liu-li? 
Glazed  faience  for  architectural  piurposes  is  doubtless  alluded  to  in 
these  two  cases;  and  we  face  here  the  same  combination  of  murra  and 
crystal  as  we  noticed  in  Pliny It  was  almost  at  the  same  time,  or  only 
a little  later,  that  the  knowledge  of  glazed  ware  spread  to  the  West 
and  the  Far  East  alike  from  the  same  focus.  It  thus  was  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  higlily-developed  ceramic  processes  of  the  anterior  Orient, 
at  their  climax  in  the  second  century  b.c.  or  earlier,  which  was  trans- 
mitted to  China,  and  gave  there  the  impetus  to  the  production  of  glazes. 

The  conception  of  liu-li  as  a precious  stone  is  chiefly  upheld  in 
Buddhist  texts;  but  in  reading  these  with  critical  understanding  it  is 
obvious  that  something  else  is  hidden  behind  this  alleged  stone.  The 
Yi  ts'ie  king  yin  i^  written  by  Yuan  Ying  about  a.d.  649,  states  that 

Chinese  Art,  Vol.  II,  p.  17).  Nothing  of  the  kind,  however,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
ancient  Chinese  texts,  which,  with  reference  to  the  Roman  Orient,  never  mention 
any  vessels  of  liu-li,  but  merely  speak  of  a substance  of  that  name,  without  any 
reference  to  objects  made  from  it.  This  clearly  indicates  that  no  vessels  of  any 
sort  were  imported,  but  only  pasty  masses  of  various  tinges  which  could  be  applied 
to  pottery  bodies.  That  liu-li  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  production  of  glass, 
simply  results  from  the  fact  that  only  as  late  as  the  fifth  century  a.d.  did  the  Chinese 
learn  from  foreigners  how  to  make  glass.  If  glazed  ware  makes  its  appearance 
under  the  Han,  it  is  obvious  that  it  bears  some  relation  to  the  liu-li  originating  from 
the  Roman-Hellenistic  Orient. 

1 Hirth,  China  and  the  Roman  Orient,  p.  73. 

2 See  T'oung  Pao,  1915,  p.  198.  In  the  dictionary  Kuang  ya  of  the  third  century 
(Ch.  9,  p.  5 b;  ed.  of  Han  Wei  ts'ung  shu)  liu-li  is  classed  with  quartz  {shui  tsing 

^ Hirth,  1.  c.,  pp.  44,  51.  Hirth  translates  liu-li  by  “opaque  glass;”  but  such 
walls  and  pillars  of  glass  have  not  yet  been  discovered. 

* In  Egypt,  as  early  as  5500  b.c.,  glazing  was  applied  on  a large  scale  for  the 
lining  of  rooms.  Tdes  have  been  found  about  a foot  long,  stoutly  made,  with 
dovetails  on  the  back,  and  holes  through  them  edgeways  in  order  to  tie  them  back 
to  the  wall  with  copper  wire.  They  are  glazed  all  over  with  hard  blue-green  glaze 
(W.  M.  Flinders  Petrie,  Arts  and  Crafts  of  Ancient  Egypt,  p.  108). 

* Ch.  23,  p.  12  b (see  above,  p.  115).  This  text  has  been  adopted  by  the  Fan 
yi  ming  i tsi  (Ch.  8,  p.  12  b:  edition  of  Nanking). 


140 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


“the  name  liu-li  or  p'i-liu-li  is  derived  from  that  of  a mountain,  and  is 
said  to  be  the  precious  stone  of  a distant  mountain,  which  is  the  Sumeru 
of  Buddhist  cosmology.  This  jewel  is  of  green  (#)  color.  Altogether, 
all  jewels  cannot  be  injured,  nor  can  they  be  melted  and  cast  by  means 
of  blaze  and  smoke.  Only  the  demons  and  spirits  have  sufficient 
strength  to  break  them  to  pieces.  There  is  further  a saying  that  Hu-U 
is  the  shell  of  the  egg  of  the  bird  with  golden  wings.^  The  demons  and 
spirits  obtain  it  and  sell  it  to  mankind.”  This  Chinese  text  is  the 
reproduction  of  a theme  of  Indian  lore;  and  the  tradition  hints  at  the 
importation  into  India  of  a substance  from  abroad,  which  could  be 
wrought  only  by  demons  (that  is,  foreigners)  The  allusion  to  melting 
shows  that  it  really  could  be  melted;  and  the  comparison  with  the  shell 
of  a bird’s  egg,  which  hints  at  a coating,  is  the  best  possible  poetical 
metaphor  for  a ceramic  glaze.  It  thus  seems  to  me  that  the  Sanskrit 
term  vaidurya  and  its  congeners  originally  denoted  some  semi-precious 
quartz-like  stone,  and  were  then  transferred  to  the  enamel  glaze  of  the 
anterior  Orient.® 

Chinese  tradition  refers  the  earliest  employment  of  liu-li  to  the 
reign  of  the  Emperor  Wu  (140-86  b.c.)  of  the  Former  Han  dynasty. 
It  is  said  in  the  Annals  of  the  Han  that  this  sovereign  despatched 
special  agents  over  the  sea  for  the  purchase  of  the  substance  p'i-liu-li^ 
It  was  likewise  known  at  that  period  that  this  article  figured  among  the 
products  of  the  country  Ki-pin  (Kashmir),  which  opened  intercourse 
with  China  under  the  same  emperor.® 

It  is  notable  that  in  the  Han  period  objects  were  found  under  ground, 
said  to  have  been  made  of  liu-li,  and  that  we  have  accounts  of  objects 
wrought  from  liu-li  by  Chinese  craftsmen.  Since  glass  was  manu- 
factured in  China  only  several  centuries  later,  it  cannot  come  here  into 
question;  and  from  the  nature  of  these  objects  it  follows  that  they 
cannot  either  have  been  of  rock-crystal  or  lapis  lazuli.  In  the  biog- 
raphy of  Hu  Tsung  ^ ® it  is  narrated  that  Hu,  during  the  life 


1 The  saliva  of  this  bird  was  believed  to  produce  the  gem  mu-nan  (see  this 
volume,  p.  70,  note  3).  It  is  the  fabulous  bird  Garuda. 

^ It  is  a well-known  fact  that  foreign  tribes  were  characterized  by  the  Aryan 
Indians  as  demons  under  such  names  as  Nagas,  Rakshasas,  or  Pigacas. 

® It  is  possible  also  that  the  Indian  words  are  derived  from  a West-Asiatic 
language. 

^ In  the  geographical  chapter  of  the  Ts'ien  Han  shu  (Ch.  28  B,  p.  17  b). 

® Ts'ien  Han  shu,  Ch.  96  a,  p.  5.  S.  W.  Bushell  (Chinese  Art,  Vol.  I,  p.  61) 
dates  the  appearance  of  glaze  in  China  only  from  the  Later  Han  dynasty 
(a.d.  25-220). 

® San  kuo  chi,  Wu  shu,  Ch.  62.  See  also  Yu  yang  tsa  tsu,  Ch.  ii,  p.  4 (ed.  of 
Pai  hai). 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China  141 

time  of  Sun  K'iian  ^ (a.d.  181-252),  while  digging  the  ground, 

found  a copper  or  bronze  chest  two  feet  and  seven  inches  long,  the 
cover  of  it  being  made  of  Im-li 

^ ^).  This  bronze  vessel  evidently  was  of  Chinese  make;  and  the 
only  reasonable  supposition  is  that  the  cover  was  of  glazed  ware,  the 
whole  affair  coming  down  from  the  Former  Han  dynasty.  Sun  Liang 
^ who  died  in  a.d.  260,  a son  of  the  aforementioned  Sun  K'uan, 
made  a screen  of  Uu-li} 

In  the  Han  wu  ku  shi  ^ ^ (that  is,  “Old  Affairs  relating  to 

Wu  of  the  Han  Dynasty”)  it  is  on  record  that  Wu  was  fond  of  the 
gods  and  genii,  and  erected  in  their  honor  sanctuaries  the  doors  of 
which  were  coated  with  a white  glaze  {pai  liu-li  S ^)  that  reflected 
its  light  afar.  The  Emperor  Ch'eng  (32-7  b.c.)  built  the  palace  Fu- 
t'ang  M for  Chao  Fei-yen,  and  had  the  doors  glazed  green.^ 

In  the  same  manner,  liu-li  is  combined  with  the  names  for  pottery  ves- 
sels: thus  we  read  about  “glazed  wine-cups”  {liu-li  chung  ^^M)^ 
and  glazed  bowls  {liu-li  wan  ^).^  The  Chinese  hardly  ever  made  use 
of  glass  for  practical  household  purposes.  Pottery  was  always  the 
article  they  preferred.  Wine  being  taken  hot,  glass  was  prohibitive 
for  wine-cups.  The  same  holds  good  for  tea.  Glass  beads  were  the 
only  article  of  practical  utility  to  the  Chinese.  Those  who  have 
written  on  glass  in  ancient  China,  merely  by  consulting  Chinese  sources, 
seem  to  have  never  seen  antique  glass  or  collections  of  Chinese  glass. 
When  the  making  of  glass  became  known  to  the  Chinese,  they  began  to 
cut  and  polish  it  in  its  hard  state;  that  is,  they  treated  it  in  the  same 
manner  as  hard  stone,  and  applied  to  it  the  principles  of  their  glyptic 
art.  Glass  became  the  domain  of  the  carver,  of  a rather  limited  art- 
industrial  importance,  but  it  never  had  any  practical  bearing  upon  the 


1 Ku  kin  chu  (Ch.  c,  p.  5 b;  ed.  of  Han  Wei  ts'ung  shu).  A fantastic 

description  of  this  screen  is  given  in  the  Ski  i ki  (Ch.  8,  p.  6;  ed.  of  Han 

Wei  ts'ung  shu).  There  are  several  other  allusions  to  such  screens  of  liu-li,  which 
in  my  opinion  were  made  of  a thin  wall  of  clay  coated  with  a glaze. 

T'ai  p'ing  yii  Ian,  Ch.  808,  p.  4.  Several  writers  have  conceived  the  windows 
and  doors  of  this  palace  as  being  made  of  glass  (for  instance,  A.  Forke,  Mitt.  Sem. 
or.  Spr.,  Vol.  I,  p.  113);  but  we  do  not  know  that  window-glass  existed  at  the  same 
time  in  the  Western  world.  Scanty  remains  of  window-glass  have  been  found  only 
in  Pompeii  and  Herculaneum,  but  no  extensive  use  was  ever  made  of  it  in  the  time 
of  the  Roman  empire.  In  western  Asia  no  window-glass  was  made,  and  accordingly 
no  export  to  China  could  take  place.  Aside  from  this  point,  I would  be  disinclined 
to  believe  in  the  possibility  of  transporting  window-glass  from  the  Orient  to  China 
at  that  time. 

^ Tsin  shu,  Ch.  45,  p.  8. 

* Yiian  Men  lei  han,  Ch.  364,  p.  31  b;  glazed  dishes  for  eating  in  Tsin  shu  {T'ai 
p'ing  yii  Ian,  Ch.  808,  p.  4 b). 


142 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


life  of  the  people.  Certainly,  the  term  liu-li  refers  also  to  opaque 
glass,  especially  from  the  fifth  century  onward.  If  in  519,  under  the 
Emperor  Wu  of  the  Liang  dynasty  (502-520),  Khotan  sent  to  China 
a tribute  gift  of  liu-li  pitchers  {liu-li  ying  these  may  be  con- 

ceived of  as  glass  as  well  as  of  glazed  pottery.  In  other  passages  the 
exact  significance  of  the  term  remains  doubtful,  as  in  the  case  of  a 
saddle  of  brilliant  white  liu-li,  which  in  the  dark  emitted  light  at  the 
distance  of  a hundred  feet,  and  which  is  mentioned  in  the  Si  king  tsa  ki 
® H Bfi  ^ among  presents  sent  to  the  Emperor  Wu  from  India.  Here 
we  have  a fabulous  echo  of  traditions  that  were  exaggerated  by  later 
generations. 

It  is  a significant  fact  that  the  reign  of  the  same  Emperor  Wu  is 
characterized  by  the  sudden  rise  of  alchemy  and  chemical  notions  and 
experiments;* *  and  this  novel  line  of  thought  is  certainly  connected  with 
the  western  expansion  and  the  newly-opened  trade-routes  across 
Central  Asia  inaugurated  by  the  same  sovereign.  In  the  Greek  alchemi- 
cal papyri  we  meet  the  oldest  technical  recipes  for  the  fabrication  of 
glass  and  enamels,  and  technical  treatises  on  glass.^  Aeneas  of  Gaza, 
a Neo-Platonic  philosopher  of  the  fifth  century,  represents  glass  directly 
as  an  alchemical  transmutation  from  a baser  to  a nobler  material  by 
observing,  “There  is  nothing  incredible  about  the  metamorphosis  of 
matter  into  a superior  state.  In  this  manner  those  versed  in  the  art 
of  matter  take  silver  and  tin,  change  their  appearance,  and  transmute 
them  into  excellent  gold.  Glass  is  manufactured  from  divisible  sand 
and  dissoluble  natron,  and  thus  becomes  a novel  and  brilliant  thing.”* 
We  have  a few  intimations  to  the  effect  that  liu-li  was  appreciated  also 
by  the  Chinese  alchemists.  Ttmg-fang  So  obtained  multi-colored 
dew  and  placed  it  in  glazed  vessels,  which  he  offered  as  a gift  to  the 
Emperor  Wu.®  The  famous  alchemist  Li  Shao-kun  ^ whose 

life  and  deeds  have  been  narrated  by  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  is  said  to  have 
repaired  the  brilliant-white  liu-li  saddle  of  Wu  mentioned  afore,  when 
this  saddle  was  once  broken  during  an  imperial  hunting-expedition; 
he  availed  himself  of  pieces  of  bone,  which  were  joined  by  means  of  a 
thin,  sticky  substance,  with  such  good  effects,  that  no  damage  could  be 


* Liang  shu,  Ch.  54,  p.  14  b. 

^ Ch.  2,  p.  2 b (ed.  of  Han  Wei  ts'ung  shu). 

^ See  particularly  Chavannes,  Memoires  historiques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  Ill 
p.  465. 

* M.  Berthelot,  Introduction  a I’dtude  de  la  chimie  des  anciens  et  du  moyen 
a,ge,  pp.  200,  202;  Les  Origines  de  I’alchimie,  pp.  123,  125. 

® M.  Berthelot,  Origines,  p.  75. 

® T'ai  p'ing  yii  Ian,  Ch.  808,  p.  4 b. 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China 


143 


perceived  even  in  broad  daylightd  When  the  ancient  Chinese  litera- 
ture on  alchemy  shall  have  become  as  accessible  as  the  Greek,  Arabic, 
and  European  records  of  this  ancient  science,  the  subject  in  question 
will  doubtless  receive  further  elucidations. 

While  liu-li  was  imported  into  China  from  the  Hellenistic  Orient 
over  the  established  trade-routes  across  Central  Asia,  and  from  Kash- 
mir, another  source  of  supply  was  represented  by  Cambodja,  which, 
as  we  know,  was  in  intimate  commercial  relations  with  India,  and 
received  from  there  the  products  and  merchandise  of  western  Asia. 
In  the  Calendar  or  Chronological  Tables  of  the  Country  of  Wu  {Wu  li 

M),  by  Hu  Ch'ung  it  is  on  record  that  in  the  fomth  year  of 

the  period  Huang-wu  "M  ^ (a.d.  225),  Fu-nan  ^ 1^  (Cambodja)  and 
other  foreign  countries  sent  envoys  to  China  with  gifts  of  liu-li?  Ac- 
cording to  another  version  of  the  same  text,  this  event  would  have 
taken  place  in  the  period  Huang-lung  ^ H (229-231).^  This  text 
contains  the  mention  of  the  first  embassy  from  Fu-nan  (Cambodja) 
to  China,  and  allows  us  to  infer  that  liu-li  was  found  there  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  third  century  and  transmitted  to  China.  Another  allusion 
to  the  presence  of  liu-li  in  the  countries  south  of  China  is  encountered 
in  the  Kuang  chi  written  by  Kuo  I-kung  IP  ^ # under  the 

Liang  dynasty  (502-556),  where  it  is  said  that  liu-li  is  a product  of 
Huang-chi  "M  Se-tiao  M Ta  Ts'in,  and  Ji-nan  0 ^ (Annam). 
Finally  liu-li  was  sent  also  to  China  from  Central  India  under  the 
Liang  dynasty  (502-5 56) 

Our  most  important  witnesses  certainly  are  the  numerous  specimens 
of  Han  mortuary  pottery  glazed  in  the  most  varied  shades  of  green 


* T'u  shu  tsi  ch'eng,  under  liu-li. 

^ Pelliot,  Bull,  de  I’Ecole  frangaise,  Vol.  IV,  p.  391. 

’ Yiian  kien  lei  han,  Ch.  364,  p.  31. 

^ T'ai  p'hig  yii  Ian,  Ch.  808,  p.  4 b.  Compare  also  Pelliot,  Le  Fou-nan  {Bull, 
de  I'Ecole  frangaise,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  283).  The  Wu  dynasty,  one  of  the  Three  Kingdoms 
{san  kuo),  reigned  from  222  to  280. 

^ Presumably  on  the  Malay  Peninsula  (see  Chinese  Clay  Figures,  p.  80,  note  2). 
Liu-li  is  also  enumerated  among  the  tribute-gifts  sent  from  Huang-chi  to  the  Chinese 
Court  {T'ai  p'ing  huan  yii  ki,  Ch.  176,  p.  2 b).  Pi-liu-li  is  mentioned  as  an  article 
of  Huang-chi  as  early  as  the  Han  period  {Ts'ien  Han  shu,  Ch.  28  B,  p.  17). 

'Probably  Java  {T'oung  Pao,  1915,  pp.  351,  373).  In  the  latter  passage  I 
mentioned  a plant  mo-ch'u  as  growing  in  Se-tiao.  M.  G.  Ferrand,  Consul  General 
of  France  in  New  Orleans,  has  been  good  enough  to  write  me  that  this  Chinese  tran- 
scription corresponds  to  Javanese  mojo,  the  designation  of  the  tree  Aegle  ntarmelos, 
and  that  the  emendation  of  Se-tiao  into  Ye-tiao  is  thus  assured,  and  the  identification 
of  Ye-tiao  with  Java  becomes  a definite  result.  M.  Ferrand  himself  will  soon  report 
about  this  ingenious  discovery. 

’ Liang  shu,  Ch.  54,  p.  8. 


144 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


and  brown,  and  still  called  by  the  Chinese  Uu4i  wa  The 

fact  that  the  process  of  glazing  itself  is  not  described  in  the  ancient 
texts,  as  pointed  out  by  Hobson,  is  not  of  great  concern.  In  fact,  we 
have  no  ancient  description  of  pottery  whatsoever;  and  no  technical 
treatise,  if  there  ever  was  any,  has  survived  from  the  Han  period.  The 
subject  of  pottery  began  to  interest  Chinese  scholars  only  as  late  as 
the  age  of  the  Sung  and  Yuan;  and  in  the  same  manner  as  the  old 
writers  fail  to  record  the  evolution  of  porcelanous  ware,  they  are  reticent 
as  to  glazing  and  other  ceramic  processes.  It  cannot  be  strongly 
enough  emphasized  that  our  knowledge  of  the  subject  should  be  re- 
constructed on  the  basis  of  actual  material  before  our  eyes,  and  not 
on  literary  sources  which  are  still  very  incompletely  exploited,  or  on 
philological  considerations.  It  is  unreasonable  to  expect  also  that 
literary  traditions  and  antiquities  of  China  should  blend  into  a uniform 
and  harmonious  picture:  neither  is  such  the  case  in  the  archaeology  of 
Greece  or  Italy.  We  have  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  Chinese  antiqui- 
ties which  cannot  be  traced  to  any  records,  but  it  would  be  an  absurd 
procedure  to  disregard  them  simply  for  this  reason.  Monuments 
speak  their  own  language,  and  are  entitled  to  a fair  and  impartial  hearing 
on  their  own  merits.  Both  monuments  and  literature  have  come 
down  to  us  only  in  fragments;  and  while  it  is  not  necessary  that  one 
department  confirms  the  other,  we  must  regard  ourselves  fortunate 
in  seeing  one  supplemented  by  the  other.^ 

Owing  to  their  lack  of  interest  in  technical  matters,  the  notions  of 
Chinese  scholars  regarding  liu-li  are  the  vaguest  possible.  Mong 


^ A disk  labelled  pi-liu-li  is  represented  on  the  Han  bas-reliefs  among  the  objects 
of  happy  augury.  No  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  this  design  as  to  objects 
made  from  liu-li,  as  the  artist  took  the  first  element  pi  in  the  sense  of  “disk”  or 
“ring,”  and  based  his  conception  on  this  interpretation.  His  work  represents 
merely  an  art-motive,  not  a reality.  This  subject  has  been  well  expounded  by 
E.  Chavannes  (Mission  archeologique,  Vol.  I,  La  sculpture  a I’epoque  des  Han, 
p.  170). 

^ There  are  several  allusions  to  green-glazed  Han  pottery  in  Chinese  writings. 
One  is  extracted  by  Hobson  (Chinese  Pottery  and  Porcelain,  Vol.  I,  p.  199)  from 
the  Gazetteer  of  Shen-si  Province,  and  refers  to  the  village  Lei-siang  in  the  pre- 
fecture of  T'ung-chou,  where  the  inhabitants  sometimes  dig  up  castaway  wares, 
archaic  in  shape  and  style,  of  green,  deep  and  dark,  but  brilliant  color,  some  with 
ornaments  in  raised  clay.  The  Gazetteer  of  the  District  of  Hua-yang  (forming 
with  the  district  of  Ch'eng-tu  the  prefectural  city  of  Ch'eng-tu,  the  capital  of  Sze- 
ch'uan)  reports  (Ch.  41,  p.  64),  “An  ancient  pottery  censer  is  in 

the  Kuang-fa  temple  ^)>  outside  of  the  city,  twenty  li  in  easterly  direction. 

It  is  rectangular  in  shape,  posed  on  four  feet,  two  feet  five  inches  in  length,  and 
one  foot  two  inches  in  width.  It  is  provided  with  lion's  ears  [relief  designs  of  animal- 
heads),  and  is  green  and  glossy.  According  to  a tradition  it  is  an  object  of  the  Shu 
Han  period  (221-264).” 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China 


145 


K'ang  of  the  third  century,  commenting  on  the  Han  Annals,^  remarks 
that  p'i-liu-li  is  green  in  color,  like  jade.  Yen  Shi-ku  (579-645), 
however,  rejects  this  generalization,  observing  that  Mong  K'ang’s 
definition  is  too  narrow;  that  the  substance  is  a natural  object,  varie- 
gated, glossy,  and  brilliant;  that  it  exceeds  any  hard  stones  (^);  and 
that  its  color  is  unchangeable.  “It  is  the  present  practice,”  he  con- 
tinues, “to  prepare  it  by  the  use  of  molten  stones,  with  the  addition 
of  certain  chemicals  to  the  flux.  This  mass,  however,  is  hollow,  brittle, 
and  not  evenly  compact;  it  is  not  the  genuine  article.”^  This  is  appar- 
ently an  allusion  to  glass.  The  notion  that  p'i-liu-li  was  regarded  as  a 
product  of  natural  origin  was  suggested  by  the  meaning  “quartz,”  which 
originally  adhered  to  the  Sanskrit  term  vaidurya,  the  prototype  of  the 
word  p'i-liu-li;  but  this  does  not  mean  that  vitreous  bodies  were  taken 
by  the  ancient  Chinese  for  precious  stones,  as  has  been  intimated  by 
some  authors.  The  confusion  is  one  of  terminology  rather  than  of  reali- 
ties. The  parallel  with  the  conception  of  murra  as  a stone  is  obvious. 

In  the  Nan  chou  i wu  chi  M ^ iS,  by  Wan  Chen  H ® of 

the  third  century,  we  read  as  follows;^  “The  principal  material  under- 
lying liu-li  is  stone.  In  order  to  make  vessels  from  it,  it  must  be 
worked  by  means  of  carbonate  of  soda.'* *  The  latter  has  the  appear- 
ance of  yellow  ashes,  which  are  found  on  the  shores  of  the  southern 
sea,  and  are  suitable  also  for  the  washing  of  clothes.  When  applied, 
it  does  not  require  straining;  but  it  is  thrown  into  water,  and  becomes 
slippery  like  moss-covered  stones.  Without  these  ashes,  the  material 
cannot  be  dissolved.”  This  is  probably  a recipe  for  making  a glaze. 
Compare  the  Chinese  notions  on  using  ashes  for  porcelain  glazes  and 
obtaining  such  ashes.  ^ 

At  the  Court  of  the  Mongol  iynasty,  four  kilns  were  established  in 
1276  at  Ta-tu  for  the  manufacture  of  plain,  white-glazed  bricks  and 
tiles  {M  I^I  5^  ^ II),  with  an  army  of  three  hundred  workmen.  The 
so-called  Southern  Kiln  {nan  yao  was  erected  in  1263,  the  West- 

ern Kiln  {si  yao  ffi  in  1267,  and  that  of  Liu-li  kii  5K  ^ M (north- 
west of  Peldng)  in  1263.®  The  latter  was  still  operated  under  the 


* Ts'ien  Han  shu,  Ch.  96  A,  p.  5. 

^ Hobson  (Chinese  Pottery  and  Porcelain,  p.  144)  gives  only  an  abridged  quo- 
tation of  Yen  Shi-ku’s  text,  as  quoted  in  the  T'ao  shuo,  which  does  not  bring  out 
the  author’s  true  meaning.  The  main  point  is  that  Yen  Shi-ku  regarded  p'i-liu-li 
as  a natural  substance,  and  looked  upon  the  artifacts  of  his  time  as  poor  substitutes. 

* T'ai  p'ing  yii  Ian,  Ch.  808,  p.  5. 

* Tse  jan  hui  literally  “natural  ashes;’’  used  also  with  reference 

to  a kind  of  earth  and  feldspath  (Geerts,  Produits,  pp.  404,  416). 

® JuLiEN,  Histoire  et  fabrication  de  la  porcelaine  chinoise,  p.  131. 

* Yiian  shi,  Ch.  90,  p.  5. 


146 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


Manchu  dynasty,  furnishing  the  well-known  glazed  tiles  and  bricks 
for  the  palace,  official  buildings,  and  state  temples  of  the  metropolis. 
Glazed  tiles  and  bricks,  however,  were  known  in  China  long  before  the 
time  of  the  Yiian.  They  certainly  existed  under  the  Sung.  Chou 
Shan,  who  in  a.d.  1177  accompanied  an  embassy  sent  by  the  Sung 
Emperor  from  Hang-chou  to  the  Court  of  the  Krn  dynasty  at  Peking, 
reports  that  the  palace  of  the  Kin  was  covered  with  tiles,  all  coated 
with  enamels,  their  colors  resplendent  in  the  sunlight.^  Ngou-yang 
Siu  (1007-72)  speaks  of  glazed  tiles.^  Sir  Aurel  Stein®  discovered  in 
the  ruins  of  Ch'iao-tse  bricks  and  tiles  bearing  in  beautiful  green  glaze 
scroll  ornaments  in  low  reliefs,  and  employed  in  a Stupa  constructed 
during  Sung  times.* *  Glazed  tiles  were  likewise  known  under  the  T'ang. 
A certain  Ts'ui  Yrmg  who  lived  in  the  T'ang  era,  erected  on 

Mount  Sung  in  Ho-nan,  in  honor  of  his  mother,  a memorial  temple 
covered  with  glazed  tiles  {liu-li  chi  wa).  The  famous  poet  Po  Ku-i 
(a.d.  772-846)  speaks  of  a pair  of  white-glazed  {pai  liu-li)  vases.® 
Remains  from  buildings  of  this  period  show  also  the  application  of 
glazing  for  architectural  purposes.  The  bricks  and  tiles  of  the  Han 
and  Wei  periods,  as  far  as  we  know  them,  are  all  unglazed,  but  it  would 
be  premature  to  assert  that  glazing  was  then  not  applied  to  them.® 
The  continuity  of  Chinese  tradition  is  vividly  illustrated  by  the 
fact  that  the  term  liu-li,  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  Han  period, 
denotes  glazed  pottery  also  at  the  present  time.  From  the  T'ang 
period  onward,  when  porcelain  came  into  vogue  as  a special  class  of 
ceramic  ware,  a division  of  nomenclattne  took  place, — liu-li  remain- 
ing reserved  for  common  pottery,  tiles,  bricks,  and  other  building- 
material,  while  a new  term  was  adopted  for  a porcelain  glaze.  The 
porcelain  enamel  was  styled  yu  (“oil”),  written  also  5ft  and 
As  far  as  I know,  this  term  is  first  applied  by  Liu  Sun  of  the  T'ang 


1 Chavannes,  Pei  Yuan  Lou  {T'oung  Pao,  1904,  p.  189).  Green-glazed  tiles 
were  employed  in  the  palace  of  the  Sung  Emperors,  according  to  the  Yii  t'ang  kia 
huo  written  by  Wang  Hui  in  1360  (Ch.  4,  p.  4 b;  ed.  of  Shou  Shan  ko  ts'ung  shu). 

2 P'ei  wen  yun  fu,  Ch.  51,  p.  79  b. 

’ Ruins  of  Desert  Cathay,  Vol.  II,  p.  252. 

* Many  remains  of  fine  glazed  pottery  were  found  by  Stein  on  his  third  expedi- 
tion in  the  ruins  of  Karakhoto  (A  Third  Journey  of  Exploration  in  Central  Asia, 
p.  39,  reprint  from  Geographical  Journal  for  August  and  September,  1916).  See 
also  the  same  author’s  Ancient  Khotan,  Vol.  I,  pp.  442,  482. 

® T'u  shu  tsi  ch'eng,  xxvii,  Ch.  334. 

® For  further  notes  on  this  subject  see  FIobson,  Chinese  Pottery  and  Porcelain, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  201  et  seq. 

According  to  K'ang-hi's  Dictionary,  this  character  is  first  listed  in  the  Tsi 
yiin  (middle  of  the  eleventh  century). 


Introduction  of  Glazes  into  China 


147 


period,  in  his  Ling  piao  lu  where  the  making  of  earthen  cooking- 
kettles  in  the  potteries  of  Kuang-tmig  is  mentioned:  “They  were 
fired  from  clay  and  then  glazed”  {'^  ^ lil  i.  1^).  A gloss  explains 
yif  as  ^4.  What  is  meant  here  is  the  application  of  porcelain  glazes  to 
earthenware.  In  ceramic  literature  the  term  yu  refers  exclusively  to 
porcelain  enamels.^  It  is  quite  certain  also  that  in  the  present  col- 
loquial language  glass  is  exclusively  styled  p'o-li,  never  liu-li,  which 
strictly  refers  to  glazed  ware. 

While  we  recognize  that  the  Chinese  received  the  stimulus  for 
the  production  of  ceramic  glazes  from  western  Asia,  it  must  be  empha- 
sized at  once  that  it  was  no  more  than  a stimulus,  and  that  the  Chinese 
were  not  slavish  imitators,  but  soon  applied  their  own  genius  to  the 
novel  idea.  The  green  glaze  of  the  Han  pottery,  as  analyzed  by  Mr. 
Nichols  (p.  93),  may  have  its  analogies  in  the  West,  and  a thorough 
search  for  corresponding  materials  would  in  all  probability  bring  to 
light  a Western  recipe  of  the  same  composition.  The  first  step  to 
independence,  however,  is  taken  by  the  production  of  the  porcelanous 
glaze  of  post-Han  times  (p.  90),  which  hardly  offers  any  contempo- 
raneous parallel  in  the  West.  From  this  time  onward  the  Chinese 
have  exercised  their  own  acumen  in  perfecting  the  process  of  glazing 
and  multiplying  the  scale  of  beautiful  colors.  Flinders  Petrie^  has 
offered  the  ingenious  suggestion  that  glaze  in  prehistoric  Egypt,  where 
it  is  found  on  quartz  bases,  was  probably  invented  from  finding  quartz 
pebbles  fluxed  by  wood  ashes  in  a hot  fire;  hence  glazing  on  quartz  was 
the  starting-point,  and  glazing  on  artificial  wares  was  a later  stage. 
Such  observ'ations  of  natural  glazes  ma}''  have  also  impressed  and 
stimulated  the  Chinese.  The  Field  Museum  owns  two  earthenware 
crucibles,  obtained  by  the  writer  in  Si-ngan  fu  (Cat.  Nos.  119076 
and  119077),  which  by  purely  natural  causes,  owing  to  the  infusion  of 
molten  metals,  are  colored  a sky-blue  with  red  flecks;  likewise  a melting- 
pot  (Cat.  No.  1 19347),  artificially  glazed  in  the  interior  and  in  the  upper 
portion  of  the  exterior,  while  the  lower  unglazed  part  has  assumed 
natural  colors  of  fiery-red  and  dark  green  from  the  effect  of  liquid 
metals.  It  is  not  impossible  that  this  natural  process  of  glazing  in- 
spired the  imagination  of  the  potters  and  gave  the  incentive  for  certain 
mottled  ceramic  glazes. 


1 Ch.  A,  p.  6 (ed.  of  Wu  ymg  lien). 

^ JuLiEN,  Histoire  et  fabrication  de  la  porcelaine  chinoise,  pp.  245,  247. 
^ Arts  and  Crafts  of  Ancient  Egypt,  p.  107. 


THE  POTTER’S  WHEEL 


When  the  clay  is  on  the  wheel  the  potter 
may  shape  it  as  he  will,  though  the  clay 
rejoins,  ‘ Now  you  trample  on  me,  one  day 
I shall  trample  on  you.’ 

Sir  Herbert  Risley,  The  People  of  India. 

Most  of  the  phenomena  of  Chinese  culture  have  hitherto  been 
studied  in  splendid  isolation.  Sinologues  have  usually  been  content  to 
gather  their  information  from  Chinese  sources  and  to  arrange  it  in 
chronological  order,  giving  a more  or  less  critical  digest  of  the  subject 
from  the  Chinese  viewpoint;  but  the  question  as  to  what  the  phe- 
nomena actually  mean  is,  as  a rule,  shunned,  their  interpretation  hardly 
attempted.  It  is  certainly  impossible  to  grasp  any  phenomenon  with- 
in a given  culture-zone  without  understanding  the  parallel  phenomena 
in  other  areas,  and  without  setting  them  in  correlation  with  their 
concomitant  factors.  The  historical  position  and  development  of  any 
cultural  idea  can  be  determined  only  by  an  attempt  to  unravel  its 
causal  connection  with  the  natural  group  of  related  or  associated  ideas; 
for  no  phenomenon  is  isolated  or  absolute,  but  conditional  upon  others, 
relative,  and  cohesive.  Whether  this  method  be  styled  that  of  com- 
parative ethnology  or  archaeology,  or  that  of  culture-science,  or  some- 
thing else,  does  not  matter.  It  is  there,  and  must  be  applied  if  we 
are  eager  to  reach  results.  How  it  can  be  applied  I wish  to  demonstrate 
by  discussing  on  the  following  pages  the  nature  of  a simple  instrument, 
— the  potter’s  wheel.  Its  concatenation  with  other  technical  elements 
and  with  social  and  religious  factors  will  be  pointed  out,  and  may  help 
to  show  the  history  of  pottery  in  a new  light,  and  in  particular  to 
determine  the  relation  of  ancient  Chinese  ceramic  art  to  that  of  the 
West.  In  a case  like  this  one,  the  foundation  of  which  reaches  back 
into  a prehistoric  past,  a purely  historical  method  is  of  no  avail,  and 
will  lead  us  nowhere.  Thus  Hobson^  observes,  “Unfortunately,  none 
of  the  [Chinese]  writers  can  throw  any  light  on  the  first  use  of  the 
potter’s  wheel  in  China.  It  is  true,  that,  like  several  other  nations, 
the  Chinese  claim  for  themselves  the  invention  of  that  essential  im- 
plement, but  there  is  no  real  evidence  to  illuminate  the  question,  and 
even  if  the  wheel  was  independently  discovered  in  China,  the  priority 


Chinese  Pottery  and  Porcelain,  Vol.  I,  p.  2. 
148 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


149 


of  invention  undoubtedly  rests  with  the  Near  Eastern  nations.”  This 
indeed  is  all  that  from  an  historical  point  of  view  could  be  stated. 

The  making  of  pottery  may  well  be  called  a universal  phenomenon, 
despite  the  fact  that  there  are  many  areas  inhabited  by  peoples  not 
acquainted  with  the  art.  It  is  unknown  to  the  natives  of  Australia, 
New  Zealand,  and  all  other  island  groups  of  the  South  Sea  populated 
by  Polynesians^  (while  it  thrives  among  the  Melanesians),  to  the 
Negrito  of  the  Philippines,  to  numerous  primitive  tribes  of  the  Indo- 
Chinese,^  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  Himalaya  (with  the  exception  of 
the  Nepalese),  and  to  many  nomadic  and  hunting  tribes  of  Siberia.^ 
It  is  further  absent  in  the  extreme  southern  parts  of  South  Africa  and 
South  America,  also  in  the  whole  north-western  portion  of  North. 
America.  Among  the  polar  peoples,  pottery  has  hardly  any  impor- 
tance. Of  the  Eskimo,  only  the  western  group  in  Alaska  makes  (or 


‘ With  the  exception  of  Easter  Island,  where  pottery  is  used  for  the  cooking  of 
certain  foods  (A.  Lesson,  Les  Polynesiens,  Vol.  I,  p.  457;  Vol.  II,  p.  282).  It  is 
difficult  to  accept  the  oft-repeated  statement  that  the  Polynesians  do  not  make 
pottery  for  want  of  proper  clays  in  their  habitats.  There  surely  is  workable  clay 
in  New  Zealand  and  Hawaii;  but  whether  there  is  or  not,  I believe  with  E.  B.  Tylor 
(Primitive  Culture,  Vol.  I,  p.  57),  that,  “as  the  isolated  possession  of  an  art  goes 
to  prove  its  invention  where  it  is  found,  so  the  absence  of  an  art  goes  to  prove  that 
it  was  never  present:  the  otius  probandi  is  on  the  other  side.” 

2 Thus  the  Lo-lo  have  never  produced  pottery  (A.  F.  Legendre,' Far  West 
chinois,  T'oung  Pao,  1909,  p.  61 1). 

’ It  is  particularly  lacking  among  the  present-day  tribes  of  the  Amur,  also 
among  the  Gilyak  and  Ainu.  Hii  K'ang-tsung,  who  as  Chinese  ambassador  in 
1125  visited  the  Kin  or  Djurchi,  observed  that  the  latter  made  no  vessels  of  clay, 
but  only  wooden  cups  and  plates  coated  with  a varnish  (Chavannes,  Voyageurs 
chinois.  Journal  asiatiqiie,  1898,  mai-juin,  p.  395).  The  same  observation  still 
holds  good  for  all  Amur  tribes,  which  during  historical  times  appear  never  to  have 
manufactured  pottery.  The  Japanese  traveller  Mamiya  Rinso,  who  visited  the 
island  of  Saghalin  in  1808,  reports  that  the  forms  of  the  clay  vessels  and  porcelains 
of  the  Gilyak  (Smerenkur)  resemble  Chinese  and  Japanese  ware  (P.  F.  v.  Siebold, 
Nippon,  2d  ed.,  Vol.  II,  p.  233).  The  question  is  here  of  imported  Chinese  articles, 
and  the  observation  is  of  no  great  consequence.  Nevertheless  L.  v.  Schrenck 
(Reisen  und  Forschungen  im  Amur-Lande,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  448)  has  based  an  elaborate 
speculation  on  this  passage,  ascribing  the  manufacture  of  crockery  and  porcelain  (!) 
to  the  Olcha  and  Gold  on  the  Amur  in  the  first  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and 
making  the  Manchu-Chinese  Government  responsible  for  the  forcible  destruction 
of  this  industry.  This  is  a fantasy  of  the  worst  kind,  for  which  no  foundation  exists 
in  the  history  of  the  Amur  tribes.  What  the  Chinese  colonists  manufactured  in 
Manchuria  was  only  crude  pottery;  contrary  to  what  is  asserted  by  L.  v.  Schrenck, 
porcelain  was  never  made  there.  The  term  “porcelain”  used  in  Siebold’s  transla- 
tion of  Mamiya  RinsO’s  account  with  reference  to  a kiln  in  the  village  Kitsi,  on  the 
right  bank  of  the  Amur,  as  usual  in  such  cases,  rests  on  a mistranslation.  It  is  of 
greater  importance  that  the  Japanese  traveller  tells  us  of  earthen  pots  six  to  seven 
inches  in  diameter,  with  loop  handles  on  both  sides,  made  at  his  time  by  the  Ainu 
of  Saghalin.  There  is  indeed  reason  to  believe  that  the  Ainu  formerly  made  a rude 
and  primitive  kind  of  pottery.  From  the  lips  of  an  Ainu  seventy  years  old,  on  the 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


150 

rather  made)  lamps  of  clay,  which  ordinarily  are  turned  out  of  soap- 
stone, and  cooking-pots  d 

A.  Byhan^  is  disposed  to  assume  that  pottery  is  of  foreign  origin 
among  the  Eskimo.  The  Chukchi,  according  to  Bogoras,®  have  now 
forgotten  this  industry,  but  it  never  was  more  than  a sporadic  phe- 
nomenon among  them.  The  Itelmen  of  Kamtchatka  formerly  manu- 
factured clay  vessels,  chiefly  lamps,  as  shown  by  finds  in  ancient  pit- 
dwellings.'* *  F.  Boas^  is  inclined  to  attribute  the  presence  or  absence 
of  pottery  to  geographical  location  rather  than  to  general  cultural 
causes.  Economic  conditions  have  a certain  bearing  on  the  question. 
The  production  of  clay  vessels  is  dependent  upon  a sedentary  mode 
of  life.  Pastoral  tribes,  as  a rule,  evince  no  inclination  toward  the 
industry,  and  deem  utensils  of  bark,  wood,  or  metal  preferable.  In 
Tibet,  with  its  twofold  population  of  agricultural  and  nomadic  elements, 
we  find  the  use  of  pottery  only  among  the  stationary  settlers,  never 
among  the  roaming  shepherds.  Even  among  the  former  it  is  an  art 
introduced  from  China,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  few  kilns  in  eastern  Tibet 
which  are  operated  by  Chinese  potters.® 

The  utilization  of  the  potter’s  wheel  is  restricted  to  a well-defined 
geographical  area.  It  occurs  only  in  the  Old  World,  and  belongs  to 
ancient  Egypt,  the  Mediterranean  and  West-Asiatic  civilizations,  Iran, 
India,  and  China  with  her  dependencies.  It  is  germane  to  the  higher 
stages  of  culture  only,  and  is  conspicuously  lacking  among  all  primitive 
tribes.  In  aboriginal  American  pottery  the  wheel  was  never  employed. 


northern  Kuriles,  Torii  has  recorded  the  story  of  how  pots  were  previously  made 
there,  chiefly  by  women  {Mitteil.  d.  Ges.  Ostasiens,  Vol.  IX,  1903,  p.  327).  As  is 
well  known,  the  Ainu  of  Yezo  have  preserved  no  recollection  of  pottery-manufacture 
(J.  Batchelor,  The  Ainu  of  Japan,  p.  310),  and  also  on  Saghalin  and  the  Kuriles 
the  industry  is  now  wiped  out  of  existence.  The  prehistoric  pottery  found  in  the 
shell-heaps  of  Japan  likewise  must  be  attributed  to  the  Ainu,  who  are  thus  to  be 
classed  among  pottery -making  peoples.  See  also  p.  166,  note  2. 

^ J.  Murdoch,  Ethnological  Results  of  the  Point  Barrow  Expedition  {Ninth 
Report  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  1892,  pp.  91-93). 

2 Polarvolker,  p.  69. 

® Mem.  Am.  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.,  Vol.  XI,  p.  186. 

* K.  VON  Ditmar,  Reisen  uild  Aufenthalt  in  Kamtschatk,a,  pp.  246-247.  As 
early  as  1695,  the  first  visitor  to  Kamtchatka,  the  Cossack  W.  Atlasov,  reported 
that  the  inhabitants  made  wooden  and  earthen  vessels  (P.  J.  voN  Strahlenberg, 
Nord-  und  Ostliche  Theil  von  Europa  und  Asia,  p.  435). 

® The  Mind  of  Primitive  Man,  p.  183. 

® W.  W.  Rockhill,  in  a note  to  his  edition  of  Sarat  Chandra  Das’  Journey  to 
Lhasa  (p.  88),  states  that,  though  he  never  saw  the  making  of  pottery  in  Tibet,  he 
knows  that  no  wheel  is  used;  which  is  perfectly  correct,  inasmuch  as  it  is  never 
handled  by  Tibetans.  F.  Grenard  (Le  Tibet,  p.  286)  observes,  “Pottery  is  of 
indigenous  manufacture,  but  the  Chinese  wheel  is  utilized.” 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


151 

Our  foremost  authority  on  this  subject,  W.  H.  Holmes, ^ makes  this 
observation;  “It  is  now  well  established  that  the  wheel  or  lathe  was 
unknown  in  America,  and  no  substitute  for  it  capable  of  assisting 
materially  in  throwing  the  form  or  giving  symmetry  to  the  outline  by 
purely  mechanical  means  had  been  devised.  The  hand  is  the  true 
prototype  of  the  wheel  as  well  as  of  other  shaping  tools,  but  the  earliest 
artificial  revolving  device  probably  consisted  of  a shallow  basket  or 
bit  of  gourd  in  which  the  clay  vessel  was  commenced  and  by  means 
of  which  it  was  turned  back  and  forth  with  one  hand  as  the  building 
went  on  with  the  other.”  Of  course,  if  further  on  (p.  69)  Holmes 
styles  the  basket  used  as  a support  in  modelling  a clay  vessel  “an  in- 
cipient form  of  the  wheel,”  this  is  only  a figure  of  speech,  for  this  device 
bears  no  relation  whatever  to  the  wheel.  This  remark  holds  good 
also  for  “that  simple  approximation  to  a potter’s  wheel,  consisting  of 
a stick  grasped  in  the  hand  by  the  middle  and  turned  round  inside  a 
wall  of  clay  formed  by  the  other  hand,”  evolved  for  North  America 
by  Squier  and  Davis,^  and  the  “natural  primitive  potter’s  wheel,” 
consisting  of  a roundish  pebble,  ascribed  to  the  New-Caledonians  by 
O.  T.  Mason ^ after  J.  J.  Atkinson.  Wherever  wheel-turned  pottery 
has  been  foimd  in  America  on  aboriginal  sites,  it  has  conclusively  been 
proved  either  that  it  is  of  European  manufacture,  or  that  the  wheel 
was  introduced  there  by  the  white  man.  Thus  it  has  been  disclosed 
that  the  wheel-made  jars,  showing  also  traces  of  a brownish  glaze, 
which  were  reported  from  Florida  and  other  Southern  States,  and 
occasionally  were  even  recovered  from  Indian  mounds,  are  of  Spanish 
manufacture,  having  been  used  in  early  Colonial  times  for  the  shipping 
of  olives  to  America.'* *  The  Quichua  employ  for  the  making  of  pottery 
a very  simple  lathe,  which  is  justly  traced  to  European  influence  by 
E.  Nordenskiold.^  It  is  worthy  of  note  also  that  the  distribution 
of  the  wheel  over  the  area  mentioned  has  remained  almost  stationary 
for  millennimns,  and  that  primitive  tribes  are  not  susceptible  to  adopt- 
ing it,  even  if  siirromided  by  civilized  peoples  who  make  use  of  it. 
The  Vedda  of  Ceylon,  for  instance,  fashion  pots  by  hand,®  while  the 
surrounding  Singalese  avail  themselves  of  the  wheel.  Nothing  of  the 


* Aboriginal  Pottery  of  the  Eastern  United  States,  p.  50  {Twentieth  Ann.  Rep. 
Bureau  Am.  Ethnology,  Washington,  1903). 

^ See  J.  Lubbock,  Prehistoric  Times  (5th  ed.),  p.  260. 

® Origins  of  Invention,  p.  161. 

* Holmes,  1.  c.,  pp.  129-130. 

® Einige  Beitrage  zur  Kenntnis  der  sudamerikanischen  Tongefasse  und  ihrer 
HersteUung  (Stockholm,  1906). 

® C.  G.  Seligmann,  The  Veddas,  p.  324. 


152 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


character  of  a potter’s  wheel  is  known  among  the  inhabitants  of  the 
Andaman  group d Or,  to  cite  another  example,  the  Negroes  of  Africa 
have  always  remained  unacquainted  with  the  wheel,  though  they  might 
have  learned  its  use  from  the  ancient  Egyptians,  or  at  a later  time  from 
the  Arabs.  The  sporadic  occurrence  of  the  wheel  in  the  Malayan 
Archipelago  indicates  its  introduction  from  outside.  It  is  found  only 
in  Padang  Lawas  on  Sumatra  and  on  Java;^  while  in  all  other  Malayan 
regions,  including  the  Philippines,  pottery  has  remained  in  the  stage  of 
handwork,  and  is  the  lot  of  woman.  The  Yakut,  the  most  intelligent 
and  progressive  people  of  Siberia,  never  avail  themselves  of  the  potter’s 
wheel,  nor  do  they  know  of  any  process  of  glazing  vessels.  Despite 
the  fact  that  they  intermarry  with  the  Russians,  and  that  on  the 
market  of  Yakutsk  wheel-made  Russian  crockery  is  offered  for  sale, 
they  still  adhere  to  their  primitive  mode  of  fashioning  vessels  solely 
by  hand,  the  only  implement  that  is  used  being  a half-round  or  round 
smooth  stone,  with  which  the  interior  of  the  pot  is  shaped  and  smoothed. 
Instead  of  securing  Russian  ware,  they  prefer  to  purchase  the  raw  clay 
material  (at  from  five  to  ten  kopeck  a pound),  and  entrust  it  to  a 
skilful  woman  potter,  together  with  fragments  of  old  broken  pots,  which 
are  pounded  and  mixed  with  the  fresh  clay.  According  to  Saroshevski,® 
to  whom  we  owe  a detailed  description  of  the  process,  also  the  illus- 
tration of  a Yakut  potter  at  work,  these  products  come  very  near  to 
those  of  the  stone  age.  In  their  crude  technique,  they  form  a curious 
contrast  to  the  excellent  iron-forged  work  and  wood-carving  for  which 
the  same  people  are  reputed. 

While  ethnologists  have  clearly  recognized  that  the  pottery-making 
of  primitive  peoples  is  essentially  a woman’s  avocation,  it  has  not  yet 
been  sufficiently  emphasized  that  the  wheel  is  a man-made  invention, 
and  that,  aside  from  the  mere  technical  difference  of  the  hand  and 
wheel  processes,  there  is  a fundamental  sociological  contrast  between 
the  two.  Among  the  Indian  tribes  of  America,  the  fictile  art  was 
woman’s  occupation,  and  such  it  is  at  present.  In  discussing  the 
methods  of  primitive  pottery,  O.  T.  Mason ^ observes,  “It  will  be  noted 
that  the  feminine  gender  is  used  throughout  in  speaking  of  aboriginal 
potters.  This  is  because  every  piece  of  such  ware  is  the  work  of  woman’s 
hands.  She  quarried  the  clay,  and,  like  a patient  beast  of  burden, 
bore  it  home  on  her  back.  She  washed  it  and  kneaded  it,  and  rolled 

I E.  H.  Man,  On  the  Aboriginal  Inhabitants  of  the  Andaman  Islands,  p.  154. 

^ Encyclopaedie  van  Nederlandsch-Indie,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  321,  322. 

’ The  Yakut  (in  Russian),  Vol.  I,  p.  378. 

* Origins  of  Invention,  p.  166;  see  also  his  Woman’s  Share  in  Primitive  Culture, 
p.  91. 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


153 


it  into  fillets.  These  she  wound  carefully  and  symmetrically  until 
the  vessel  was  built  up.  She  further  decorated  and  burned  it,  and 
wore  it  out  in  household  drudgery.  The  art  at  first  was  woman’s.” 
As  regards  Africa,  we  owe  a very  able  investigation  to  H.  Schurtz,i 
whose  studies  of  African  conditions  prompted  him  to  the  conclusion 
that  pottery  ever}rwhere  appears  to  be  an  invention  of  woman,  who 
was  more  imgently  in  need  of  boiling  water  in  the  preparation  of  vege- 
table food  than  man  in  dressing  his  hunting-spoils.  A map  constructed 
by  Schurtz,  and  illustrating  the  distribution  of  pottery  over  Africa, 
shows  at  a glance  that  the  largest  territory  is  occupied  by  female 
potters;  that  male  potters  occur  only  in  Abyssinia,  among  the  Galla 
and  Somali  in  eastern  Africa,  and  this  owing  to  Arabic  influence.  In 
a few  other  areas  men  are  engaged  in  the  making  of  the  bowls  for  their 
cherished  tobacco-pipes,  while  the  women  produce  from  clay  all  domes- 
tic and  kitchen  utensils;  and  in  a few  localities  only,  men  and  women 
co-operate  in  the  ceramic  industry.  In  regard  to  the  Khasi  in  Assam, 
Major  Gordon^  observes,  “The  women  fashion  the  pots  by  hand,  they 
do  not  use  the  potter’s  wheel.”  On  the  Nicobars  the  men  take  no 
part  in  the  construction  of  pots.®  All  over  Melanesia,  pottery  is  made 
exclusively  by  women.  The  making  of  clay  vessels  is  no  longer  prac- 
tised by  the  Chukchi,  but  their  old  women  (not  the  men)  have  a vivid 
recolleetion  of  the  elay  kettles  which  were  used  in  former  times.^ 

The  potter’s  wheel,  however,  is  the  creation  of  man,  and  therefore 
is  an  independent  act  of  invention  which  was  not  evolved  from  any 
eontrivance  utilized  during  the  period  of  hand-made  ceramic  ware. 
The  two  processes  have  grown  out  of  two  radically  distinct  spheres  of 
hvunan  activity.  The  wheel,  so  to  speak,  came  from  another  world. 
It  had  no  point  of  contact  with  any  tool  that  existed  in  the  old  indus- 
try, but  was  brought  in  from  an  outside  quarter  as  a novel  affair,  when 


1 Das  afrikanische  Gewerbe,  pp.  13-19. 

2 The  Khasis,  p.  61. 

® C.  B.  Kloss,  In  the  Andamans  and  Nicobars,  p.  107.  According  to  E.  H. 
Man  (On  the  Aboriginal  Inhabitants  of  the  Andaman  Islands,  p.  154),  the  manu- 
facture of  pots  on  the  Andamans  is  not  confined  to  any  particular  class,  or  to  either 
sex,  but  the  better  specimens  are  generally  produced  by  men.  Compare  the  same 
author’s  Nicobar  Pottery  (/.  Anthr.  Institute,  Vol.  XXIII,  1894,  PP-  21-27).  Also 
among  the  Vedda  pots  are  turned  out  by  both  men  and  women  (C.  G.  Seligmann, 
The  Veddas,  p.  324). 

W.  Bogoras,  in  Mem.  Am.  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.,  Vol.  XI,  p.  186.  The  industry 
of  primitive  pottery  is  fast  dying  out  everywhere  under  the  influence  of  “civiliza- 
tion” (compare,  for  instance,  M.  R.  Harrington,  Catawba  Potters  and  Their 
Work,  in  Am.  Anthr.,  Vol.  X,  1908,  pp.  399-407:  and  The  Last  of  the  Iroquois  Pot- 
ters, in  N.  Y.  State  Mus.  Bull.,  1909,  pp.  222-227;  as  to  Africa,  see  O.  Baumann, 
Globus,  Vol.  LXXX,  1901,  p.  127). 


154 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


man  appropriated  to  himself  the  work  hitherto  cultivated  by  woman. 
The  development  was  one  from  outside,  not  from  within.  All  efforts, 
accordingly,  which  view  the  subject  solely  from  the  technological 
angle,  and  try  to  derive  the  wheel  from  previous  devices  of  the  female 
potter,  are  futile  and  misleading.^  It  is  as  erroneous  as  tracing  the 
plough  back  to  the  hoe  or  digging-stick,  whereas  in  fact  the  two 
are  in  no  historical  interrelation,  and  belong  to  fundamentally  differ- 
ent culture  strata  and  periods, — the  hoe  to  the  gardening  activity  of 
woman,  the  plough  to  the  agricultural  activity  of  man.  Both  in  India 
and  China,  the  division  of  ceramic  labor  sets  apart  the  thrower  or 
wheel-potter,  and  distinctly  separates  him  from  the  moulder.  The 
potters  of  India,  who  work  on  the  wheel,  do  not  intermarry  with  those 
who  use  a mould  or  make  images.^  They  form  a caste  by  them- 
selves.® In  ancient  China,  a net  discrimination  was  made  between 
wheel-potters  {t'ao  jen  A)  and  moulders  {fang  jen  M A).^  This 
clear  distinction  is  accentuated  also  by  Chu  Yen  in  his  Treatise 


1 E.  J.  Banks  (Terra-Cotta  Vases  from  Bismya,  Am.  Journ.  Sem.  Langs., 
Vol.  XXII,  1905-06,  p.  140)  has  this  observation  on  the  making  of  Babylonian 
pottery:  “ From  the  study  of  Bismya  pottery  it  is  evident  that  a wheel  was  employed 
at  every  period,  yet  all  of  the  vases  were  not  turned.  No.  43,  a form  reconstructed 
from  several  fragments  from  the  lowest  strata  of  the  temple  hiU,  and  which  therefore 
dates  several  millenniums  before  4500  B.C.,  has  the  appearance  of  having  been  formed 
by  placing  the  clay  upon  a flat  surface,  and  while  the  potter  shaped  it  with  one  hand, 
he  turned  the  board  or  flat  stone,  whatever  it  was  upon  which  it  rested,  with  the 
other.  This  was  probably  the  origin  of  the  potter’s  wheel;  it  was  but  a matter 
of  time  when  an  arrangement  was  attached  to  the  board  that  it  might  be  turned 
with  the  feet.”  All  this  is  purely  speculative  and  fantastic,  and  has  no  value  for 
the  real  history  of  the  wheel. 

^ A.  Baines,  Ethnography  (Castes  and  Tribes)  of  India,  p.  65. 

® The  social  position  of  the  Indian  potter  is  differently  described  by  various 
authors.  H.  Compton  (Indian  Life  in  Town  and  Country,  p.  65)  observes  that 
the  potter  in  India  is  an  artist;  that  he  is  an  hereditary  village  officer,  and  receives 
certain  very  comfortable  fees;  that  his  position  is  respected;  that  he  enjoys  the 
privilege  of  beating  the  drum  at  merry-makings,  that  he  shares  with  the  barber 
a useful  and  lucrative  place  in  the  community;  and  that  there  is  probably  no  member 
of  it  who  is  happier  in  his  lot,  and  less  liable  to  the  vicissitudes  of  fortune.  H. 
Risley  (People  of  India,  p.  130)  gives  us  a bit  of  Indian  popular  thought  regarding 
the  potter:  “He  lives  penuriously,  and  his  own  domestic  crockery  consists  of  broken 
pots.  He  is  a stupid  fellow  — in  a deserted  village  even  a potter  is  a scribe  — 
and  his  wife  is  a meddlesome  fool,  who  is  depicted  as  burning  herself,  like  a Hindu 
wife,  on  the  carcase  of  the  Dhobi’s  donkey.”  According  to  G.  C.  M.  Birdwood 
(Industrial  Arts  of  India,  Vol.  II,  p.  146),  the  potter  is  one  of  the  most  useful  and 
respected  members  of  the  community,  and  in  the  happy  religious  organization  of 
Hindu  village  life  there  is  no  man  happier  than  the  hereditary  potter.  The  truth 
probably  lies  in  the  midway  between  these  two  extreme  appreciations.  As  to  an- 
cient times,  compare  the  Buddhist  story  of  the  sage  potter,  translated  by  E.  Lang 
{Journal  asiatique,  1912,  mai-juin,  p.  530). 

^ E.  Biot,  Tcheou-li,  Vol.  II,  pp.  537-539- 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


155 


on  Pottery.^  He  justly  observes  also  that  the  articles  made  by  the 
wheel-potters  were  all  intended  for  cooking,  with  the  exception  of  the 
vessel  yii  }M.,  which  was  designed  for  measuring;  while  the  output  of 
the  moulders,  who  made  the  ceremonial  vessels  kmi  and  tou  SL 
by  availing  themselves  of  the  plumb-line,  was  intended  for  sacrificial 
use.  Also  here,  in  like  manner  as  in  ancient  Rome,  India,  and  Japan, 
the  idea  may  have  prevailed  that  a wheel-made  jar  is  of  a less  sacred 
character  than  one  made  by  hand. 

Wherever  the  potter’s  wheel  is  in  use,  it  is  manipulated  by  man, 
never  by  woman.*  It  is  man’s  invention,  it  is  man’s  sphere  of  work. 
As  implied  by  its  very  name,  it  is  directly  derived  from  a chariot-wheel, 
which  is  likewise  due  to  man’s  efforts.  Such  a real  cart-wheel  with 
four  spokes  is  still  operated  by  the  Tamil  potters.  It  is  well  illustrated 
by  E.  Thurston,®  and  thus  described  after  E.  Holder  (Fig.  i):  “The 
potter’s  implements  are  few,  and  his  mode  of  working  is  very  simple. 
The  wheel,  a clumsily  constructed  and  defective  apparatus,  is  com- 
posed of  several  thin  pliable  pieces  of  wood  or  bamboo,  bent  and  tied 
together  in  the  form  of  a wheel  about  three  feet  and  a half  in  diameter. 
This  is  covered  over  thickly  with  clay  mixed  with  goat’s  hair  or  any 
fibrous  substance.  The  four  spokes  and  the  centre  on  which  the  vessel 
rests  are  of  wood.  The  pivot  is  of  hard  wood  or  steel.  The  support 
for  the  wheel  consists  of  a rounded  mass  of  clay  and  goat’s  hair  in 
which  is  embedded  a piece  of  hard  wood  or  stone,  with  one  or  two  slight 
depressions  for  the  axle  or  pivot  to  move  in.  The  wheel  is  set  into 
motion  first  by  the  hand,  and  then  spun  rapidly  by  the  aid  of  a long 
piece  of  bamboo,  one  end  of  which  fits  into  a slight  depression  in  the 
wheel.  The  defects  in  the  apparatus  are,  firstly,  its  size,  which  re- 
quires the  potter  to  stoop  over  it  in  an  uneasy  attitude;  secondly,  the 
irregularity  of  its  speed,  with  a tendency  to  come  to  a standstill,  and 
to  wave  or  wobble  in  its  motion;  and,  thirdly,  the  time  and  labor  ex- 
pended in  spinning  the  wheel  afresh  every  time  its  speed  begins  to 

^ T'ao  skuo  Ch.  2,  p.  2 (new  edition,  1912).  Compare  S.  W.  Bushell, 

Description  of  Chinese  Pottery,  p.  33. 

^ Woman  working  on  the  potter’s  wheel  is  a strictly  modern  artificial  reform 
of  our  “civilization,”  which  tends  to  check  the  “man-made  world,”  with  the  result 
that  it  insures  woman’s  industrial  enslavement  to  perfection.  Mary  White  (How 
to  make  Pottery,  p.  28)  observes,  “Until  lately,  few  women  potters  have  worked  on 
the  wheel,  because  the  ordinary  form  of  potter’s  wheel,  which  was  turned  with 
one  foot,  the  potter  standing  on  the  other,  made  the  work  too  difficult  and  laborious 
for  a woman  to  attempt.  Now,  however,  a wheel  copied  from  an  old  French  model 
is  in  use,  which  enables  the  potter  to  sit  while  at  work.” 

^ Castes  and  Tribes  of  Southern  India,  Vol.  IV,  p.  190.  Holder’s  article  is 
in  Journal  of  Indian  Art,  No.  58,  being  accompanied  by  excellent  illustrations  of 
potter’s  wheels  and  of  potters  working  at  the  wheel. 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


156 

slacken.  Notwithstanding,  however,  the  rudeness  of  this  machine, 
the  potters  are  expert  at  throwing,  and  some  of  their  small  wares  are 
thin  and  delicate.”  It  should  be  added,  that,  as  may  be  seen  in  the 
illustration  (Fig.  i),  the  wheel  is  but  slightly  above  the  ground,  and  that 
the  potter  stands  bent  over  the  vessel.  The  apparatus,  described  by 
E.  A.  Gait^  for  the  kilns  of  Assam,  has  likewise  featmes  in  common 
with  the  cart-wheel.  While  the  centre  consists  of  a solid  disk  of  tama- 
rind or  some  other  hard  wood,  about  thirteen  inches  in  diameter, 
there  is  an  outer  rim  joined  to  it  by  means  of  four  wooden  spokes,  each 
of  these  being  about  six  inches  in  length.  The  outer  rim,  about  six 
inches  wide,  is  made  of  split  bamboo,  bound  with  cane,  and  covered 
with  a thick  plaster  of  clay  mixed  with  fibres  of  the  sago  palm.  The 
object  of  this  rim  is  to  increase  the  weight  of  the  wheel,  and  thereby 
add  to  its  momentum.^  In  Assamese  as  well  as  in  Bengali,  the  potter’s 
wheel  is  simply  called  cak  (“wheel,”  from  Sanskrit  cakra). 

In  the  fatapatha  Brahmana  (XI,  8)  the  potter’s  wheel  {kauld- 
lacakra;  kuldla,  “potter;”  cakra,  “wheel”)  is  thus  alluded  to  in  close 
connection  with  the  cart-wheel;  “Verily,  even  as  this  cart-wheel,  or 
a potter’s  wheel,  would  creak  if  not  steadied,  so,  indeed,  were  these 
worlds  unfirm  and  unsteadied.”®  A similar  association  of  ideas  occurs 
in  the  Chinese  philosopher  Huai-nan-tse,  who  died  in  122  b.c.  He 
compares  the  activity  of  Heaven  as  the  creative  power  with  the  revolu- 
tions of  a wheel  by  saying,  “The  wheel  of  the  potter  revolves,  the 
wheel  of  the  chariot  turns;  when  their  circle  is  completed,  they  repeat 
their  revolution.”*  In  the  porcelain-factories  of  King-te-chen,  the 
potter’s  wheel  is  styled  Vao  ch'e  ^ (that  is,  “potter’s  chariot”)  or 
lun  ch'e  H ^ (that  is,  “wheeled  chariot”).  Ordinarily  the  potter 
speaks  simply  of  his  “wheel”  {lun-tse  H J‘).  An  engraving  of  about 
1540  shows  an  Italian  potter’s  table  in  the  shape  of  a regular  six- 
spoked  wheel.®  Technically  speaking,  the  potter’s  wheel  is  nothing 


* The  Manufacture  of  Pottery  in  Assam  {Journalof  Indian  Art,V  ol.Yll,  1897, p. 6). 

® The  Assam  potters  do  not  finish  their  pieces  on  the  wheel,  but  when  taken 

down  and  sun-dried,  they  are  placed  in  a hollow  mould  of  wood  or  earthenware, 
in  which  they  assume  their  final  shape  by  being  beaten  with  a flat  wooden  or  earthen- 
ware mallet,  held  in  the  right  hand,  against  a smooth,  oval-shaped  stone  held  by 
the  left  hand  against  the  inner  surface.  When  the  required  shape  has  been  given 
the  vessel,  it  is  again  sun-dried,  the  surface  being  then  polished  with  an  earthen- 
ware pestle  or  a rag. 

5 J.  Eggeling’s  translation  in  Sacred  Books  of  the  East,  Vol.  XLIV,  p.  126.  The 
exact  date  of  this  work  is  not  known,  but  it  is  believed  that  it  goes  back  to  the 
sixth  century  b.c. 

* Chavannes,  M^moires  historiques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  V,  p.  27. 

‘ Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  Vol.  V,  p.  706. 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


157 


Fig.  I 

INDIAN  Potter’s  Wheel  in  the  Shape  of  A Cart-Wheel 
(Sketch  after  Holder,  Journal  of  Indian  Art) 


158 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


but  a primitive  cart-wheel  turning  on  its  axle.  The  invention  pre- 
supposes the  existence  of  the  wheel  adapted  to  transportation,  and 
in  all  the  great  civilizations  in  which,  as  stated  above,  the  potter’s 
wheel  is  found,  we  indeed  meet  also  the  wheeled  cart.  We  further 
observe,  that,  wherever  the  potter’s  wheel  occurs  and  the  wheeled 
cart  does  not  occur,  the  former  was  introduced  from  a higher  culture- 
zone:  for  instance,  in  Japan,  to  which  the  conception  of  the  cart  is 
foreign,  and  which  received  the  potter’s  wheel  from  Korea;  or  among 
the  Tibetans,  who  have  no  wheeled  vehicles,  and  in  the  midst  of  whom 
the  potter’s  wheel  is  only  handled  by  Chinese.^  Again,  the  wheeled 
cart  is  conspicuously  absent  in  all  those  culture-areas  in  which,  as  has 
been  stated,  the  potter’s  wheel  is  unknown.  Wherever  original  con- 
ditions have  remained  intact  and  undisturbed  by  outside  currents, 
the  two  implements  either  co-exist,  or  do  not  exist  at  all.  Of  course, 
it  must  not  be  understood  that  the  idea  of  the  potter’s  wheel  was  con- 
ceived in  a haphazard  manner,  as  though  a wheel,  intentionally  or 
incidentally,  had  been  detached  from  a cart,  its  novel  utilization  being 
reasoned  out  on  speculative  and  technical  grounds.  Primitive  man, 
and  man  of  the  prehistoric  past,  is  not  a rationalistic  or  utilitarian 
being,  but  one  endowed  with  thoughts  of  highly  emotional  character, 
and  prompted  to  peculiar  associations  of  ideas  that  are  inspired  by 
religious  sentiments.  Of  the  theories  which  have  been  expounded  in 
regard  to  the  primeval  origin  of  the  wheel,  none  as  yet  is  wholly  satis- 
factory; but  this  much  is  assured,  that  it  was  connected  with  a certain 
form  of  religious  worship,  that  in  its  origin  the  chariot  was  utilized  in 
the  cult  before  it  was  turned  to  practical  purposes  of  transportation.® 
The  symbolism  and  worship  of  the  wheel  in  western  Asia,  prehistoric 
Europe  and  India,  is  so  well  known  that  this  matter  does  not  require 
recapitulation.  A similar  spirit  pervades  the  early  references  to  the 
potter,  his  work  and  his  wheel.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  potter’s 
control  over  the  clay  illustrates  the  sovereignty  of  God,  who  made 
man  of  clay,  and  formed  him  according  to  his  will.  “ O house  of  Israel, 
cannot  I do  with  you  as  this  potter?  saith  the  Lord.  Behold,  as  the 
clay  is  in  the  potter’s  hand,  so  are  ye  in  my  hand,  saith  the  Lord” 
(Jeremiah  XVIII.  i-6).  “Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that 
formed  it.  Why  hast  thou  made  me  thus?  Hath  not  the  potter  power 


1 The  wheeled  cart  is  designated  in  Tibetan  siting  rta  (“wooden  horse”), — a 
word-formation  which  testifies  to  the  fact  that  the  cart  is  foreign  to  Tibetan  culture. 
In  fact,  carts  are  not  employed  by  Tibetans.  We  only  read  in  ancient  records  of 
vehicles  for  the  use  of  kings,  presumably  introduced  from  India. 

2 E.  Hahn,  Alter  der  wirtschaftlichen  Kultur,  p.  123;  and  Entstehung  der 
Pflugkultur,  p.  40. 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


159 


over  the  clay,  of  the  same  lump  to  make  one  vessel  unto  honour  and 
another  unto  dishonour?”  (Romans  IX.  20,  21.)  In  ancient  Egypt, 
the  god  Phtah  fashions  the  egg  of  the  world  on  a potter’s  wheel,  setting 
it  in  motion  with  his  feet.^  According  to  W.  Crooke,^  the  potter  of 
India  regards  the  making  of  his  vessels  as  a semi-religious  art.  The 
wheel  he  worships  as  a type  of  the  creator  of  all  things;  and  when  he 
fires  his  kiln,  he  makes  an  offering  and  a prayer.  He  also  makes  the 
funeral  jar,  in  which  the  soul  of  the  dead  man  for  a time  takes  refuge. 
Hence  he  is  a sort  of  funeral  priest,  and  in  some  parts  of  the  country 
receives  regular  fees.  It  was  a current  notion  in  ancient  China  that 
the  evolution  of  Heaven  creates  the  beings  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
potter  turns  his  objects  of  clay  on  the  wheel.  The  potter’s  wheel  was  a 
symbol  of  the  creative  power  of  nature.  In  the  ancient  writers  in  whose 
works  this  conception  looms  up  it  appears  as  a purely  philosophical 
abstraction;  but  it  is  obvious  that  the  latter  goes  back  to  a genuine 
mythological  idea,  which,  like  everything  mythical  in  China,  is  lost, — 
the  naive  conception  of  the  creator  as  a potter  and  thrower  (as  in  the 
Old  Testament).  The  potter’s  wheel  was  used  also  as  a simile  with 
reference  to  the  activity  of  the  sovereign.  Yen  Shi-ku,  in  his  commen- 
tary on  the  Han  Annals,  quotes  a saying  that  “the  holy  rulers  by  virtue 
of  their  regulations  managed  the  empire  in  the  same  manner  as  a potter 
turns  the  wheel.”  It  is  therefore  not  impossible  that  religious  specula- 
tions, centring  around  the  cart-wheel  and  the  fashioning  of  clay  vessels 
and  figures,  might  have  had  a prominent  share  in  associating  the  wheel 
with  the  potter’s  activity,  and  given  the  first  impetus  to  “throwing.” 
If  it  can  be  maintained  that  the  ancient  Egyptians  were  the  first  to  employ 
the  potter’s  wheel,  it  may  well  be  that  the  invention  is  due  to  the  circle 
of  the  priests.  Be  this  germ  idea  as  it  may,  the  cultiu* *e-historical  posi- 
tion of  the  potter’s  wheel  is  well  ascertained.  In  view  of  the  vast  periods 
of  human  prehistory,  it  is  a comparatively  late  invention,  following  in 
time  the  construction  of  the  wheeled  cart,  being  based  on  the  cart-wheel, 
and  made  by  man  (presumably  first  by  priests  in  illustration  of  a myth 
for  religious  worship)  during  the  stage  of  fully-developed  agriculture. 

In  the  stage  of  hoe-culture  or  gardening,  the  occupation  of  woman, 
the  potter’s  wheel  is  absent.  Wherever  it  appears,  it  is  correlated  with 
man’s  activity  in  agriculture,  based  on  the  employment  of  the  ox  and 
plough.  This  featme  is  illustrated  by  both  ancient  China  and  India. 
The  Emperor,  or  more  correctly  culture-hero.  Shun  (alleged  2258-2206 
B.C.),  in  his  youth,  before  he  assumed  charge  of  the  administration  of 


1 E.  A.  W.  Budge,  Gods  of  the  Egyptians,  Vol.  I,  p.  500,  with  colored  plate. 

* Things  Indian,  p.  389. 


i6o 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


the  empire,  is  said  to  have  practised  husbandry,  fishing,  and  making 
pottery  jars:  he  fashioned  clay  vessels  on  the  bank  of  the  River,  and 
all  these  were  without  flawd  The  philosopher  Mong-tse  explained  this 
act  by  saying  that  Shun  continually  tried  to  learn  from  others  and  to 
take  example  from  his  fellowmen  in  the  practice  of  virtued  Another 
tradition  crops  out  in  the  Ki  chung  Chou  shu:^  here  the  incipient  work 
in  clay  is  attributed  to  the  culture-hero  Shen-nung,  who,  as  implied 
by  his  name  (“Divine  Husbandman”),  was  regarded  as  the  father  of 
agriculture  and  discoverer  of  the  healing-properties  of  plants.  In 
this  ancient  lore  we  meet  a close  association  of  agriculture  with  pottery, 
and  an  illustration  of  the  fact  that  husbandman  and  potter  were  one 
and  the  same  person  during  the  primeval  period. 

Likewise  in  ancient  India  the  potter’s  trade  was  localized  in  special 
villages,  either  suburban  or  ancillary  to  large  cities,  or  themselves 
forming  centres  of  traffic  with  surrounding  villages.^  Thus  it  is  the 
case  at  the  present  day.  When  the  writer,  in  1908,  passed  through 
Calcutta  and  desired  to  see  a Hindu  potter  at  work,  he  was  obliged 
to  drive  several  miles  out  of  the  city  into  a neighboring  village.  In 
fact,  the  potter  is  a peasant,  and  attends  to  his  field  during  the  rainy 
season,  when  he  is  unable  to  pursue  his  craft;  he  must  have  dry  weather 
to  harden  his  pots  before  they  are  fired.®  According  to  Sir  A.  Baines,® 
the  potter  is  one  of  the  recognized  village  staff,  and,  in  return  for  his 
customary  share  in  the  harvest,  is  bound  to  furnish  the  earthenware 
vessels  required  for  domestic  use.  His  caste  is  associated  with  the 
donkey,  the  saddle-animal  of  the  Goddess  of  Small-Pox;  and  his  donkey, 
when  the  kiln  is  not  in  operation,  is  employed  in  carrying  grain  and 
other  produce.  In  most  parts  of  the  country  the  potters  sometimes 
hold  land,  and  in  others  take  service  in  large  households. 

Likewise  in  ancient  China  the  potter  lived  in  close  contact  with  the 
farmer,  and  received  from  liim  cereals  in  exchange  for  his  products.'^ 


I Chavannes,  Memoires  historiques  de  Se-ma  Ts'ien,  Vol.  I,  pp.  72,  74;  compare 
Biot,  Tcheou-li,  Vol.  II,  p.  462.  See  also  Shi  ki,  Ch.  128,  p.  5,  where  the  com- 
mentary cites  the  Shi  pen  to  the  effect  that  Kun-wu  (this  volume,  p.  39)  made 
pottery. 

^ Legge,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  II,  p.  206. 

® Chavannes,  1.  c.,  Vol.  V,  p.  457. 

^ R.  Fick,  Die  sociale  Gliederung  im  nordSstlichen  Indien,  pp.  179,  181.  Mrs. 
Rhys  Davids,  Notes  on  Early  Economic  Conditions  in  Northern  India  {Journ. 
Roy.  .4s.  Soc.,  1901,  p.  864). 

^ W.  Crooke,  Natives  of  Northern  India,  p.  135. 

® Ethnography  (Castes  and  Tribes),  p.  65  (Strassburg,  1912;  Encyclopcedia  of 
Indo-Aryan  Research). 

’’  According  to  Mong-tse,  hi,  i,  § 4 (Legge,  Chinese  Classics,  Vol.  II,  p.  248). 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


i6i 


The  farmer  was  in  urgent  need  of  these  articles,  which  were  in  large 
demand;  for  “a  single  potter  wo^dd  not  do  in  a country  of  ten  thousand 
families,  and  could  not  supply  their  wants,”  and  “with  but  few  potters 
a kingdom  cannot  subsist.”  ^ 

The  potter’s  particular  residence  is  naturally  determined  by  the 
sites  of  suitable  clay,  and  his  dependence  on  clay-digging  excludes 
him  from  towns  and  cities.  Thus  A.  K.  Coomaraswamy'^  observes, 
“The  Singalese  potters  are  found  all  over  the  country  in  every  village 
affording  the  necessary  clay,  but  often  aggregated  in  greater  numbers 
in  places  where  an  especially  good  supply  of  suitable  clay  is  available. 
Thence  the  potter  carries  his  pots  for  sale  to  more  remote  districts  in 
huge  pingo  loads.”  The  same  holds  good  for  China;  all  kilns  are  lo- 
cated in  the  country,  and  the  potters  supplying  the  wants  of  the  villages 
and  towns  are  farmers  themselves. 

The  modifications  brought  about  in  the  industry  by  the  application 
of  the  wheel  were  fundamental  and  far-reaching.  Technically  they  led  to 
a greater  rapidity  and  hence  intensity  of  the  process,  but,  above  all, 
to  many  new  features  of  form,  consigning  many  others  to  oblivion. 
Likewise  they  residted  in  a regularity,  symmetry,  harmony,  and  grace 
of  shape,  in  a refinement  and  perfection  unattained  heretofore.  The 
potter’s  art  came  in  close  touch  and  was  set  in  correlation  with  other 
man-made  industries,  particularly  with  that  of  the  bronze-founder, 
who  furnished  the  potter  with  new  ideas  of  forms  and  designs.^  The 
birth  of  artistic  pottery  was  thus  inaugurated.  In  passing  from  the 
hands  of  woman  into  those  of  man,  the  whole  industry  was  imbued 
with  a more  active  and  vigorous  spirit,  and  elevated  to  a higher  plane 
by  man’s  creative  genius.  It  overstepped  the  narrow  boundary  of 
purely  domestic  necessity  and  developed  into  an  organized  system  of 
carefully-planned  and  skilfully-directed  manufacture  on  a large  scale 
and  with  a wide  scope.  The  ceramic  work  turned  out  by  woman 
depended  on  local  conditions,  and  catered  to  the  narrow  circle  of  the 


1 Mong-tse,  VI,  2,  §§  3 and  6 {ibid.,  p.  442). 

^ Mediaeval  Sinhalese  Art,  p.  218. 

^ W.  Hough  (Man  and  Metals,  Proceedings  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences, 
Vol.  II,  1916,  p.  125)  justly  insists  on  the  intimate  connection  of  clay  and  metal 
working.  The  activity  of  the  ancient  sovereigns  of  China  is  likened  not  only  to 
that  of  the  potter,  but  also  to  that  of  the  founder.  Potter  and  founder  |5^  ^ are 
frequently  mentioned  together  (for  instance,  by  Mong-tse:  Legge,  Chinese  Classics, 
Vol.  II,  p.  248).  The  correlation  of  the  mortuary  pottery  of  the  Han  with  corre- 
sponding types  in  bronze  has  been  shown  by  me  in  detail.  The  same  phenomenon 
occurs  in  the  prehistoric  ceramic  art  of  central  Europe,  where  imported  Roman 
bronze  vessels  were  imitated  and  reproduced  in  clay  (see  particularly  A.  Voss, 
Nachahmungen  von  Metallgefassen  in  der  prahistorischen  Keramik,  Verh.  Berl. 
Anthr.  Ges.,  Vol.  XXXIII,  1901,  pp.  277-284). 


i62 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


home  community.  The  widened  horizon  of  man  led  him  to  search  for 
clays  and  other  materials  in  distant  localities,  and  to  trade  his  finished 
product  over  the  established  routes  of  commerce  in  exchange  for  other 
goods.  It  was  due  to  the  introduction  of  the  wheel  that  ceramic 
labor  was  afforded  the  opportunity  of  growing  out  of  a mere  communal, 
clannish,  or  tribal  industry  into  a national  and  international  factor  of 
economic  value.^ 

In  the  suburbs  and  villages  around  Peking,  where  pottery  is  manu- 
facttrred,  two  kinds  of  wheel  are  in  use.  The  two  specimens  illustrated 
on  Plates  XI  and  XII  were  secured  near  Peking  by  the  writer  in  1903, 
and  are  in  the  American  Museum  of  Natm-al  History,  New  York.  The 
one  is  made  of  a hat-shaped  mass  of  clay,  which  is  hardened  by  the 
addition  of  pig’s  hair  and  straw.  This  wheel  is  employed  for  tiurning 
out  circular  vessels  of  small  and  medium  sizes,  and  may  be  regarded 
as  the  common,  typical  wheel  used  throughout  northern  China.  The 
other  wheel  consists  of  a weighty  stone  disk  made  in  the  great  indus- 
trial centre,  the  town  Huai-lu  in  Shan-si  Province.  It  serves  for  the 
making  of  round  and  heavy  vessels  of  large  dimensions.^  A round 
wooden  board  is  placed  on  the  stone  disk  as  support  or  table  on  which 
the  mass  of  clay  is  shaped.  The  difference  between  the  clay  and  stone 
wheels,  accordingly,  is  one  of  degree  only,  not  of  type;  indeed,  they 
represent  the  same  type,  and  are  identical  in  their  mechanical  con- 
struction. Both  wheels  revolve  on  a wooden  vertical  axis,  the  lower 
extremity  of  which  is  fixed  into  a pit,  so  that  the  upper  surface  of  the 
disk  lies  on  the  same  level  as  the  floor  of  the  shed  in  which  the  potter 
works.  The  latter  squats  on  the  ground  in  front  of  the  wheel,  and  sets 
it  in  motion  by  means  of  a wooden  stick,  which  is  inserted  in  a shallow 
cavity  near  the  periphery  of  the  stone  disk.  While  the  disk  continues 
to  twirl,  a lump  of  clay  is  thrown  upon  it  and  worked  by  the  potter 
with  both  of  his  hands:  he  vigorously  presses  his  thumbs  downward, 
shaping  the  bottom  of  the  jar,  then  draws  them  upward,  and  it  seems 
as  though  by  magic  the  walls  of  the  vessel  come  running  out  of  his 

1 With  reference  to  the  La-T^ne  period,  these  changes  are  well  characterized 
by  H.  Schmidt  in  his  excellent  article  Keramik,  in  the  Reallexikon  der  germanischen 
Altertumskunde,  edited  by  J.  Hoops  (Vol.  Ill,  p.  36). 

^ Aside  from  China,  stone  wheels  seem  to  occur  in  India,  but  only  occasionally 
(H.  H.  Cole,  Catalogue  of  the  Objects  of  Indian  Art  in  the  South  Kensington 
Museum,  p.  201).  H.  R.  C.  Dobbs  {Journal  of  Indian  Art,  No.  57,  p.  3)  remarks 
that  in  the  north-west  provinces  of  India  wheels  are  made  either  of  clay,  or  stone,  or 
wood,  but  most  commonly  of  clay.  The  difference  is  merely  one  of  durability: 
a clay  wheel  lasts  about  five  years  and  can  be  made  in  four  days  without  cost  to  the 
potter;  a wooden  wheel  lasts  for  about  ten  years,  being  made  by  a local  carpenter 
for  Rs.  1-8;  a stone  wheel  wiU  last  a lifetime,  and  is  usually  brought  from  Mirzapur 
or  Indore  at  an  average  cost  of  Rs.  4. 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


163 

fingers.  The  procedure  is  exactly  identical  with  the  practice  of  the 
ancients,  as  described  by  H.  Blumner.^  I never  saw  a Chinese  potter 
spinning  the  wheel  with  his  left  hand  and  simultaneously  forming  a 
pot  only  with  his  right.  He  will  always  swing  his  wheel  first,  and  then 
use  both  hands  for  fashioning  the  vessel.  This  point  is  particularly 
mentioned,  because  several  authors  tell  us  that  the  potter  at  the  same 
time  works  the  wheel  with  liis  left  hand  and  fashions  the  clay  with  his 
right.  Thus  A.  Erman^  says,  with  reference  to  ancient  Egypt,  that 
the  wheel  was  turned  by  the  left  hand,  whilst  the  right  hand  shaped 
the  vessel.  The  same  is  asserted  with  regard  to  the  potter  on  Sirmatra.® 
If  these  observations  should  be  correct,  which  may  justly  be  doubted, 
the  potters  who  behave  in  this  manner  can  hardly  be  credited  with 
common  sense.  If  the  wheel  is  once  set  spinning,  a constant  revolution 
of  sufficient  velocity  may  very  well  be  maintained  for  from  five  to  seven 
minutes,  which  woffid  afford  ample  time  for  a skilful  workman  to  turn 
out  one  or  even  several  vessels  by  the  use  of  both  hands.  There 
is  no  necessity  whatever  for  his  left  hand  to  operate  the  wheel,  and 
how  the  right  hand  alone  could  satisfactorily  model  a pot  is  difficult  to 
see.  In  China,  Japan,  and  India,  at  all  events,  the  potter  will  always 
use  both  hands  in  this  process;  or  he  has  a helpmate  to  attend  to  the 
wheel. 

In  his  description  of  the  porcelain-manufacture  at  King-te-chen, 
P^re  d’Entrecolles  has  alluded  to  the  employment  of  the  wheel, 
without,  however,  going  deeper  into  the  subject.^  In  the  King  te  chen 
t'ao  lu,^  the  wheel  is  described  as  a round  wooden  board,  with  a mech- 
anism below,  that  effects  a speedy  revolution.  The  potter  is  seated 
over  the  wheel  (literally,  “he  sits  on  the  chariot”  ^ ^ iK’ $ _L), 
pushing  it  with  a small  bamboo  stick,  and  moulding  the  clay  with  both 
of  his  hands.  The  illustrations  reproduced  by  Julien  after  the  first 
edition  of  1815  (Plates  V and  VP)  show  the  potter  squatting  at  the  end 
of  two  low  benches,  steadying  his  feet  on  the  latter;  but  the  mode  of 
turning  the  wheel  is  represented  in  a different  manner  from  the  descrip- 
tion in  the  text.  In  one  illustration  the  potter  avails  himself  of  an 
assistant,  who  bends  over  a bench,  and  sets  the  wheel  in  motion  with 
his  left  hand.  In  the  other,  the  helpmate  turns  the  wheel  with  his 


1 Technologie,  Vol.  II,  p.  39. 

^ Life  in  Ancient  Egypt,  p.  457. 

’ Encyclopasdie  van  Nederlandsch- Indie,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  321. 

‘ DuHalde,  Description  of  the  Empire  of  China,  Vol.  I,  p.  342;  or  S.  W. 
Bushell,  Description  of  Chinese  Pottery,  pp.  190-191. 

® Ch.  I,  p.  18  b (new  edition  of  1891);  compare  Julien,  Histoire,  p.  146. 

' Those  of  the  new  edition  are  different,  and  much  coarser  in  execution. 


164 


Beginnings  or  Porcelain 


right  unshod  foot,  while  supporting  himself  by  means  of  a rope  sus- 
pended from  the  branch  of  a tree.  The  wheel  itself  is  a cog-wheel,  the 
projecting  teeth  being  of  a rectangular  shape.^  The  foot  of  the  turner 
fits  exactly  into  the  space  left  by  two  teeth.  This  arrangement  is 
identical  with  that  of  the  small  lead  cylinders  fixed  around  a Roman 
wheel  of  baked  clay  found  near  Arezzo  in  1840,  and  the  pegs  attached 
to  the  circumference  of  other  wheels  discovered  in  the  vicinity  of 
Nancy.  ^ 

The  devices  depicted  in  this  Chinese  book  are  obviously  those  of 
central  and  southern  China.  This  is  confirmed  by  an  observation  of 
E.  S.  Morse,  who  had  occasion  to  see  and  to  sketch  a potter  at  work 
near  Canton,  and  who  points  out  the  same  rope  contrivance.  “The 
wheel  rests  on  the  ground,  and  the  potter  squats  beside  the  wheel.  A 
helper  stands  near  by,  steadying  himself  with  a rope  that  hangs  down 
from  a frame  above;  holding  on  to  this  and  resting  on  one  foot,  he  kicks 
the  wheel  around  with  the  other  foot.  The  potter  first  puts  sand  on 
the  wheel,  so  that  the  clay  adheres  slightly.  He  does  not  separate  the 
pot  from  the  wheel  by  means  of  a string,  as  is  usual  with  most  potters 
the  world  over,  but  lifts  it  from  the  wheel,  the  separation  being  easy 
on  account  of  the  sand  previously  applied.  The  pot  is  somewhat  de- 
formed by  this  act,  but  is  straightened  afterwards  with  a spatula 
and  the  hand,  as  was  the  practice  of  a Hindu  potter  whom  I saw  at 
Singapore.”® 

Besides  the  plain  wheel,  as  considered  heretofore,  another  type  oc- 
curs in  China, — a wheel  with  double  disks.  In  this  case,  there  are  two 
horizontal,  parallel  disks  or  wheels  connected  by  a vertical  spindle. 
The  lower  one,  being  of  considerably  smaller  diameter,  is  operated  by 
the  feet  of  the  workman,  and  accordingly  turns  the  upper  one,  which 
is  reserved  as  the  potter’s  table.  A similar  device  is  described  by 
Jesus  Sirach  in  the  third  centiury  b.c.^  The  same  principle  is  brought 
out  in  a potter’s  wheel  found  by  Fabroni  in  1779  at  Cincelli  or  Centmn 
Celias,  in  the  neighborhood  of  Arezzo,  in  Italy.  It  is  composed  of  two 
disks  or  tables,  both  placed  horizontally,  of  unequal  diameter,  having 
a certain  distance  between  them,  and  their  centre  traversed  by  a 
vertical  pin,  which  revolves.  The  wheel  discovered  was  part  of  one 


* It  is  doubtless  on  this  illustration  that  E.  Zimmermann’s  (Chinesisches  Porzel- 
lan,  Vol.  I,  p.  179)  description  of  the  potter’s  wheel  is  based;  but  I do  not  believe 
that  this  type  is  common,  at  least  I never  saw  it  in  any  of  the  kilns  which  I had 
occasion  to  visit. 

2 H.  Blumner,  Technologic,  Vol.  II,  p.  39. 

^ E.  S.  Morse,  Glimpses  of  China  and  Chinese  Homes,  p.  199. 

* Blumner,  1.  c.,  p.  38,  note  3. 


The  Potter’s  Wheel  165 

of  the  disks,  made  of  terra  cotta,  about  three  inches  thick  and  eleven 
feet  in  diameter,  with  a groove  all  round  the  borderd 

A double  wooden  wheel  is  occasionally  employed  by  the  potters  in  the 
north-west  provinces  of  India  and  Oudh,  but,  curiously  enough,  the  upper 
disk  is  the  smaller  one.  It  is  about  ten  inches  in  diameter,  and  on  it 
the  clay  is  worked.  The  lower  disk,  two  feet  apart  from  the  upper  one, 
measures  two  feet  across.  The  whole  apparatus  is  placed  in  a pit  about 
three  feet  deep,  the  smaller  disk  being  on  a level  with  the  siirface  of  the 
ground.  The  axle  turns  on  a stone  slab  at  the  bottom  of  the  pit,  and  is 
kept  upright  by  a crossbeam  with  a perforation  in  the  middle,  through 
which  it  runs.  The  potter  is  seated  on  the  edge  of  the  pit,  and  turns 
the  wheel  by  pressing  the  lower  disk  with  his  right  foot.  The  motion  of 
this  wheel  is  more  even  and  continuous  than  that  of  the  single  wheel, 
and  is  employed  for  the  finer  kinds  of  pottery  at  Rampur  and  Mlrut.^ 
The  double  wheel  is  used  also  in  Java,  where  it  is  called  prehot.  It 
is  composed  of  two  wooden  disks,  one  placed  above  the  other,  the  upper 
one,  of  somewhat  larger  size,  being  revolved  on  the  lower  one.  The 
upper  one  is  styled  “female  board”  {uncher  wedok),  the  lower  one  “male 
board”  {uncher  lanang).  The  upper  wheel,  on  which  is  placed  a flat 
board  for  the  clay  to  be  moulded,  is  set  in  motion  by  means  of  the  foot.® 
F.  Brinkley^  describes  the  contrivance  of  a double  wheel  in  the 
hands  of  the  potters  at  Arita  in  Hizen.  It  consists  of  a driving  and 
a working  wheel,  fixed  about  twelve  to  fifteen  inches  apart  on  a hollow 
wooden  prism.  On  the  lower  side  of  the  driving-wheel  is  a porcelain 
cup  that  rests  on  a vertical  wooden  pivot  projecting  from  a round  block 
of  wood  over  which  the  system  is  placed.  The  pivot  is  planted  in  a 
hole  of  such  depth  that  the  rim  of  the  driving-wheel  is  slightly  raised 
above  the  surface  of  the  ground.  Beside  this  hole  the  modeller  sits, 
and,  while  turning  the  system  with  his  foot,  moulds  a mass  of  material 
placed  on  the  working- wheel.  His  only  tools  are  a piece  of  wet  cloth 
to  smooth  and  moisten  the  vessel,  a small  knife  to  shape  sharp  edges, 
a few  pieces  of  stick  to  take  measurements,  and  a fine  cord  to  sever  the 
finished  vase  from  its  base  of  superfluous  matter. 

Sir  Ernest  Satow,®  describing  the  work  of  the  potters  of  Tsuboya, 
observes  that  these  use  wheels  of  three  different  sizes.  The  smallest 


S.  Birch,  History  of  Ancient  Pottery,  p.  556. 

- H.  R.  C.  Dobbs,  Pottery  and  Glass  Industries  of  the  North-West  Provinces 
and  Oudh  {Journal  of  Indian  Art,  No.  57,  p.  4). 

^ Encyclopaedie  van  Nederlandsch-Indie,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  322. 

« Japan,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  68. 

® Korean  Potters  in  Satsuma  {Transactions  As.  Soc.  of  Japan,  Vol.  VI,  1878, 
p.  196). 


i66 


Beginnings  oe  Porcelain 


is  formed  by  two  wooden  disks  about  three  inches  thick,  the  upper  one 
being  fifteen  inches,  the  lower  eighteen  inches,  in  diameter,  connected 
by  four  perpendicular  bars  somewhat  over  seven  inches  long.  It  is 
poised  on  the  top  of  a spindle  planted  in  a hole  of  sufficient  depth,  which 
passes  through  a hole  in  the  lower  disk,  and  enters  a socket  in  the  under 
side  of  the  upper  disk;  and  the  potter,  sitting  on  the  edge  of  the  hole, 
turns  the  wheel  round  with  his  left  foot.  The  largest  wheel  is  about 
twice  the  size  of  the  smallest  in  every  way.  This  description  fits  very 
well  the  illustration  of  a potter’s  wheel  in  the  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'eng  (see 
Fig.  2),  except  that  the  two  wheels  are  here  connected  by  two  vertical 
bars,  and  that  the  whole  apparatus  is  above  ground,  so  that  the  potter 
is  obliged  to  stand. 

Although  the  real  study  of  Korean  pottery  remains  to  be  made,‘ 
the  general  development  of  the  art  in  its  main  features  can  be  clearly 
traced.  We  may  distinguish  four  principal  periods, — first,  a prehis- 
toric or  neolithic  period  prior  to  the  cultural  contact  of  Korea  with 
China,  during  which  primitive  vessels  without  the  application  of  the 
wheel  were  turned  out,  that  represent  a uniform  group  with  the  pre- 
historic pottery  found  in  the  Amur  region,  Manchuria,  Saghalin,  and 
Japan;^  second,  the  period  of  the  SiUa  kingdom  (57-924)  heralded  by 
the  introduction  of  Chinese  culture,  in  the  wake  of  which  the  forms  of 
the  ancient  Chinese  sacrificial  vessels  as  well  as  dishes  for  every-day 
use  and  the  potter’s  wheel  made  their  appearance;  third,  the  Korai 
period  (925-1392),  centring  around  Song-do,  where  glazed  pottery,  also 
porcelain,  was  produced  according  to  models  and  traditions  of  Chinese 
Sung  ware;  and,  fourth,  the  modem  period  after  1392.  Here  we  are 
concerned  only  with  the  second  or  the  first  historic  period,  which  is 
characterized  by  the  novel  feature  of  the  wheel  and  by  new  and  elegant 
shapes  based  on  Chinese  prototypes.  We  have  authentic  records  in 

^ Compare  in  particular  A.  Billequin,  Notes  sur  la  porcelaine  de  Cor^e  {T'oung 
Pao,  Vol.  VII,  1896,  pp.  39-46);  E.  S.  Morse,  Catalogue  of  the  Morse  Collection 
of  Japanese  Pottery,  pp.  25-31,  and  the  study  of  P.  L.  Jouy,  quoted  below;  J. 
Platt,  Ancient  Korean  Tomb  Wares  {Burlington  Mag.,  Vol.  XX,  No.  106,  1912, 
pp.  222-230,  2 plates);  Petrucci,  Korean  Pottery  {ibid.,  1912,  p.  82,  2 plates), 
and  letter  of  J.  Platt  {ibid.,  1913,  p.  298);  A.  Fischer,  Oriental.  Archiv,  Vol.  1, 1911, 
pp.  154-157,  plate  XXXIV). 

^ As  to  the  Amur  region,  a great  quantity  of  pottery  fragments  was  dug  up  by 
G.  Fowke  in  1898  (compare  his  report  Exploration  of  the  Lower  Amur  Valley, 
Am.  Anthr.,  Vol.  VIII,  1906,  pp.  276-297);  this  collection  is  in  the  American  Museum 
of  Natural  History,  New  York.  The  Japanese  archaeologist  Torii  found  similar 
material  in  eastern  Mongolia  and  Manchuria  {Journ.  of  the  College  of  Science, 
Tokyo,  Vol.  XXXVI,  No.  4,  pp.  49  et  seq.,  and  No.  8 of  the  same  volume, 
PP-  9.  30-41.  62-64,  71.  3-od  plates  XIV-XVIII,  XXIII).  Neolithic  Korean  pot- 
tery is  described  by  Shozaburi  Yagi  {Journ.  Anthr.  Soc.  of  Tokyo,  Vol.  XXX,  1915, 
p.  178). 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


167 


Chinese  Double-Wheel  Potter’s  Lathe 
(Sketch  after  T'u  shu  tsi  ch'eng) 


i68 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


regard  to  the  adoption  of  the  latter  on  the  part  of  the  Koreans  d and 
as  the  greater  part  of  the  pottery  of  this  period  is  turned  on  the  wheel, ^ 
while  that  of  the  preceding  ages  was  fashioned  only  by  hand,  it  is  safe 
to  assume  that  the  introduction  of  the  wheel  is  due  to  Chinese 
influence. 

P.  L.  JouY  writes  on  the  Korean  potter’s  wheel  as  follows;  “The 
Korean  potter’s  wheel  consists  of  a circular  table  from  two  to  three 
feet  in  diameter  and  four  to  six  inches  thick,  made  of  heavy  wood  so 
as  to  aid  in  giving  impetus  to  it  when  revolving.  In  general  appearance 
it  is  not  very  unlike  a modeller’s  table.  This  arrangement  is  sunken 
into  a depression  in  the  ground,  and  revolves  easily  by  means  of  small 
wheels  working  on  a track  underneath,  the  ta^le  being  pivoted  in  the 
centre.  The  wheel  is  operated  directly  by  the  foot,  without  the  aid 
of  a treadle  of  any  kind.  The  potter  sits  squatting  in  front  of  the 
wheel,  his  bench  or  seat  on  a level  with  it,  and  space  being  left  between 
his  seat  and  the  wheel  to  facilitate  his  movements.  With  his  left 
foot  underneath  him,  he  extends  his  right  foot,  and  strikes  the  side  of 
the  wheel  with  the  bare  sole  of  the  foot,  causing  it  to  revolve.”® 

A Japanese  tradition  credits  the  celebrated  Korean  monk  GyOgi 
fr  ^ (a.d.  670-749)  ^ with  the  invention  of  the  potter’s  wheel.  W.  G. 
Aston,®  W.  Gowland,®  and  F.  Brinkley^  have  rejected  this  legend 
as  unfounded  by  pointing  out  that  the  wheel  was  known  in  Japan 


^ Hou  Han  shu,  Ch.  115,  and  the  writer’s  Chinese  Pottery,  p.  127.  The  Wo-tsii 
in  Korea  interred  in  the  graves  pottery  vessels  filled  with  rice.  In  this  respect 
the  Chinese  account  is  of  interest,  that  all  the  Eastern  barbarous  tribes,  Tung  I 
availed  themselves  of  dishes  and  platters  {tsu  ton  ^ _g_)  for  eating  and 
drinking,  with  the  sole  exception  of  the  Yi-lou  or  Su-shen  {T'ai  p'ing  huan  yu  ki, 
Ch.  175,  p.  4 b).  See  also  Kiu  T'ang  shu,  Ch.  199  A,  p.  i. 

* P.  L.  JouY,  The  Collection  of  Korean  Mortuary  Pottery  {Report  of  the  U.  S. 
National  Museum,  1887-88,  pp.  589-596,  particrdarly  p.  591). 

* Science,  Vol.  XII,  1888,  p.  144.  Mrs.  Bishop  (Korea  and  Her  Neighbours, 
Vol.  I,  p.  93)  says,  “The  potters  pursue  their  trade  in  open  sheds,  digging  up  the 
clay  close  by.  The  stock-in-trade  is  a pit  in  which  an  uncouth  potter’s  wheel 
revolves,  the  base  of  which  is  turned  by  the  feet  of  a man  who  sits  on  the  edge  of 
the  hole.  A wooden  spatula,  a mason’s  wooden  trowel,  a curved  stick,  and  a piece 
of  rough  rag,  are  the  tools,  efficient  for  the  purpose.’’  A Korean  drawing  showing 
a potter  at  work  is  reproduced  in  Int.  Archiv.  f.  Ethnogr.,  Vol.  IV,  1891,  plate  III, 
fig.  6. 

*■  His  life  is  briefly  summed  up  by  E.  Papinot,  Dictionnaire  de  geographie  et 
d’histoire  du  Japon,  p.  152.  J.  J.  Rein  (Industries  of  Japan,  p.  457)  states  only 
that  Gyogi  was  the  first  to  introduce  the  wheel  into  Japan,  which  may  well  be  the 
original  tradition,  and  that  this  event  took  place  in  a.d.  724. 

® Nihongi,  Vol.  I,  p.  12 1. 

® The  Dolmen  and  Burial  Mounds  in  Japan,  p.  494. 

’’  Japan,  Vol.  VIII:  Keramic  Art,  p.  9. 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


169 


long  before  his  time.^  Of  course,  Gyogi  is  not  the  “inventor”  of 
the  wheel,  any  more  than  Anacharsis  the  Scythian,  or  Hyperbius  of 
Corinth,  or  Talus,  the  nephew  of  Daedalus.  Nevertheless  it  may  be 
that  Gyogi,  who,  being  a craftsman,  was  doubtless  instrumental  in 
the  advancement  of  the  ceramic  industry  in  Japan,  brought  the  speci- 
men of  a wheel  along  on  his  mission;  and,  if  nothing  else,  this  tradition 
would  at  least  point  to  an  introduction  of  the  wheel  from  Korea.  This 
is  the  natural  course  of  events  that  we  should  expect,  for  the  prehistoric 
pottery  of  Japan  was  solely  made  by  hand.^  The  early  historic  pottery 
found  in  the  dolmens  is  wheel-shaped;  but  whether,  with  Gowland,  it 
is  to  be  dated  in  the  beginning  of  our  era,  is  a debatable  point.  E.  S. 
Morse* *  has  offered  another  kind  of  convincing  testimony  for  the 
fact  that  the  early  Japanese  potter  modelled  by  hand:  the  ancient 
practice  is  still  continued  in  its  prehistoric  form  in  various  parts  of  the 
empire,  where  many  potters  use  only  the  hand  in  making  bowls,  dishes, 
or  teapots.  The  vessels  employed  as  offerings  at  Shinto  shrines  are 
usually  made  without  the  wheel,  and  are  unglazed, — a phenomenon 
that  we  likewise  meet  in  ancient  Rome  and  in  ancient  India. 

According  to  Morse,  the  typical  form  of  the  potter’s  wheel  in  Japan 
consists  of  a wooden  disk  fifteen  to  eighteen  inches  in  diameter,  and 
three  inches  thick.  This  is  fastened  to  a hollow  axis  fourteen  or  more 
inches  in  length.  A spindle  with  pointed  end  is  planted  firmly  in  the 
ground;  and  on  this  the  wheel  is  placed,  the  spindle  passing  up  through 
the  hollow  axis,  and  a porcelain  saucer  or  cup  being  inserted  in  the 
wheel  to  lessen  friction  as  it  rests  on  the  spindle.  The  wheel  itself 
is  on  a level  with  the  floor;  and  the  potter,  sitting  in  the  usual  Japanese 
position,  bends  over  the  wheel,  which  he  revolves  by  inserting  a slender 
stick  in  a shallow  hole  or  depression  near  the  periphery  of  the  wheel. 
With  a few  vigorous  motions  of  his  arm  the  wheel  is  set  in  rapid  motion ; 
then,  with  his  elbows  braced  against  his  knees,  the  whole  body  at  rest, 
he  has  the  steadiest  command  of  the  clay  he  is  to  turn.  As  the  wheel 
slackens  in  motion,  he  again  sets  it  twirling.* 


‘ I am  unable,  however,  to  admit  Aston’s  statement  that  the  text  of  the  Nihongi 
to  which  he  refers  contains  evidence  of  this  fact.  This  evidence  is  negative  or  inconclu- 
sive, as  the  text  in  question  speaks  only  of  hand-made  (ta-kujiri)  small  jars,  which,  ac- 
cording to  Aston,  should  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  “this  was  exceptional,”  and 
that  fashioning  on  the  wheel  was  the  common  practice  of  the  time.  In  a.d.  588  the 
first  potters  came  to  Japan  from  the  Korean  state  Pektsi  (Aston,  1.  c.,  p.  117). 

* E.  S.  Morse,  Shell  Mounds  of  Omori,  p.  9;  Iijima  and  Sasaki,  Okadaira 
Shell  Mound  at  Hitachi,  pp.  2-5;  N.  G.  Munro,  Prehistoric  Japan,  p.  167. 

’ Catalogue  of  the  Morse  Collection  of  Japanese  Pottery,  p.  6. 

* Illustrations  of  the  implements  used  by  the  Japanese  brick-layer  and  potter 
may  be  seen  in  Siebold,  Nippon,  Vol.  VI,  plate  IV. 


170 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


The  wheel  is  termed  rokuro  (Chinese  lu-lu),  which  properly 

means  a pulley,  windlass,  capstan,  then  further  a turning-lathe.  The 
Japanese  double  wheel  has  been  pointed  out  (above  on  p.  165). 

If  it  is  correct  that  the  potter’s  art  came  to  Burma  from  China  rather 
than  from  India,  and  that  glazing  was  acquired  there  from  the  Chinese 
either  directly  or  through  the  medium  of  the  Shan,^  it  is  probable  also 
that  the  wheel  reached  Burma  from  the  same  centre.  In  the  town  of 
Bassein  the  double  wheel  is  in  use.*  In  like  manner  it  is  probable  that 
also  the  Annamese,  who  learned  the  entire  process  of  porcelain-manu- 
facture from  their  conquerors,  the  Chinese,  adopted  the  wheel  from 
the  latter.®  The  invasion  of  the  outskirts  of  Tibet  through  Chinese 
potters  working  on  the  wheel  has  already  been  mentioned.  They 
use  a plain  wooden  wheel  sunk  into  the  ground,  and  work  it  with 
the  foot.  China,  consequently,  was  the  centre  from  which  the  art  of 
wheel-made  pottery  radiated  to  all  other  countries  of  the  East,  in 
accordance  with  the  diffusion  of  Chinese  culture  among  the  same 
peoples. 

The  great  antiquity  of  the  wheel  in  China  cannot  reasonably  be 
doubted.  As  has  been  stated,  it  is  alluded  to  in  early  writers  of  the 
pre-Christian  era,  and  appears  to  have  played  a part  in  mythological 
conceptions.  It  is  designated  by  a plain  root-word,  kun  % or 
which  means  also  “even,  level,  harmonious.”  It  was  the  instrument 
by  means  of  which  clay  vessels  were  evenly  balanced;  it  was  a sort  of 
“harmonizer.”  A description  of  the  ancient  wheel  has  apparently 
not  come  down  to  us.  A commentator  of  Se-ma  Ts'ien’s  Annals  notes 
that  it  was  seven  feet  high  and  provided  with  a plumb-line  for  adjusting 
the  vessels.^  From  Biot’s  translation  of  the  Chou  Z^®it  would  seem  as 
if  the  wheel  were  mentioned  in  that  work,  for  we  read,  “Tout  vase 
d’usage  ordinaire  doit  6tre  conforme  au  tour.  . . Le  tour  est  haut 

de  quatre  pieds.  En  carrd,  il  a quatre  dixiemes  de  pied.”  A potter’s 
wheel  of  course  is  round,  and  everybody  will  be  struck  by  the  anomaly 
that  the  wheel  should  be  foirr-tenths  of  a foot  square.  In  fact,  the  text 
does  not  speak  of  a wheel,  but  of  an  instrument  manipulated  by  the 
moulders.  The  passage  runs  thus:  H ij*. 


> Gazetteer  of  Upper  Burma  and  the  Shan  States,  Part  I,  Vol.  II,  pp.  399,  403. 
In  support  of  this  deduction,  the  fact  is  cited,  that,  in  proportion  to  the  population, 
there  are  more  potters’  villages  in  the  Shan  states  than  in  Burma,  and  that  in  many 
places,  notably  in  Papun,  the  potters  are  emigrant  Shan. 

^ L.  c.,  p.  400. 

® A.  DE  PouvouRViLLE,  L’Art  indo-chinois,  p.  238. 

^ P'ei  wen  yiin  fu,  Ch.  51,  p.  77. 

6 Vol.  II,  p.  539. 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


171 

The  word  po,  as  far  as  I know,  occurs  only  in  this  text  as  a potter’s 
term.  The  commentator  Ch'en  Yung-chi  Pll  explains  it  as  “sliced 
meat”  ^),  saying  that  the  potter’s  products  should  be  like  the 
latter,  that  is,  as  thin  and  smooth;  and  that  the  object  of  rendering  a 
vessel  equally  thick  and  smooth  is  attained  by  the  application  of  the 
instrument  po,  which  accordingly  may  have  been  a lathe.  Cheng  Ngo 
§5  ^^1,  another  commentator  of  the  Chou  li,  remarks  that  it  was  of  wood 
and  placed  on  the  side  of  the  potter’s  wheel  {kiin  ^),  but  his  further 
description  is  not  very  lucid.  At  all  events,  the  instrument  in  question 
was  not,  as  conceived  by  Biot,  a potter’s  wheel,  wliich  in  fact  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  text  of  the  Chou  li. 

Almost  all  the  round  jars  and  vases  of  the  Han  period  have  been 
shaped  on  the  wheel;  and  these  ancient  potters  exercised  considerable 
skill  in  its  use.^  The  profession  of  the  throwers  is  emphasized  in  the 
ritual  of  the  Chou  dynasty  {Chou  li),  and  distinguished  from  that  of  the 
moulders.  Moreover,  we  now  have  well-authenticated  specimens  of 
pottery  of  that  period,  which  likewise  exliibit  the  marks  of  the  wheel. 
A truly  neolithic,  primitive,  hand-made  pottery,  such  as  we  have  from 
Japan  and  Korea,  has  now  also  been  traced  in  Chinese  soil,  particularly 
in  southern  Manchuria,  Liao-tung,  and  Shen-si.  I am  inclined  to 
date  the  use  of  the  wheel  in  China  back  to  a very  remote  age.  The 
chief  reason  which  prompts  me  to  this  conclusion  is,  that  ancient  Chinese 
records  contain  no  traditions  to  the  effect  that  pottery  was  ever  the 
office  of  woman;  on  the  contrary,  they  associate  the  industry  exclu- 
sively with  the  activity  of  man,  and  these  potters  were  agriculturists. 
The  only  ancient  industry  characterized  as  a female  occupation  is  that 
of  the  rearing  of  silkworms  and  weaving.  The  “invention”  of  pottery, 
however,  is  ascribed  to  the  mythical  emperors  Huang-ti,  Shen-nung, 
and  Shun;  and  throughout  Chinese  history  we  hear  only  of  male  potters. 
In  fact,  as  we  observe  also  at  the  present  time,  woman  has  no  share 
whatever  in  this  business.  The  potter’s  wheel,  therefore,  cannot  be 
simply  regarded  as  borrowed  by  the  Chinese  from  the  West  in  historical 
times,  but  it  belongs  to  those  primary  elements  of  culture  which  the 
Chinese  have  in  common  with  certain  ancient  forms  of  Western  civiliza- 
tion. In  our  present  state  of  knowledge,  it  is  futile  to  endeavor  to 
explain  the  how  and  why  of  this  interrelation.  There  can  be  no  doubt, 
however,  that  the  ancient  Chinese  wheel  has  sprung  from  the  same 


'■This  is  also  the  opinion  of  so  prominent  an  expert  in  pottery  as  J.  Brinck- 
MANN,  the  late  director  of  the  Hamburg  Museum  fiir  Kunst  und  Gewerbe,  who  has 
written  an  excellent,  though  brief,  article  on  Han  pottery,  especially  with  reference 
to  its  technique  {Jahrbuch  der  Ilamhurgischen  Wissensch.  Anstalten,  Vol.  XXVIT, 
1909,  pp.  96-102). 


172 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


source  as  that  found  in  the  West.  Both  are  identical  as  to  mechanical 
construction,  even  in  minor  points,  and  as  to  effect. 

A comparatively  great  antiquity  of  the  potter’s  wheel  may  be 
assumed  also  for  India.  Allusion  has  been  made  to  the  early  mention 
of  it  in  the  fatapatha  Brahmana  (p.  157).  The  jar  employed  for  the 
ritual,  as  described  by  Katyayana,^  was  solely  formed  by  hand  after 
the  fashion  of  coiled  pottery.  This  does  not  prove  that  the  wheel 
was  not  in  use  at  that  time,  for  jars  serving  religious  purposes  were 
made  by  hand  likewise  in  Rome  and  Japan,  even  after  the  intro- 
duction of  the  wheel.  The  case  merely  goes  to  show  that  hand- 
made ware  preceded  the  wheel-made  fabric  also  in  ancient  India, 
and  that  the  concept  of  a fundamental  difference  between  the  two 
was  maintained,  the  hand-made  product  being  reserved  for  religious 
worship. 

The  potter’s  wheel  is  twice  mentioned  in  the  Jataka.^  In  one  story 
it  is  told  how  a Bodhisatva  went  to  the  king’s  potter  and  became  his 
apprentice.  One  day,  after  he  had  filled  the  house  with  potter’s  clay, 
he  asked  if  he  should  make  some  vessels;  and  when  the  potter  answered, 
“Yes,  do  so,”  he  placed  a lump  of  clay  on  the  wheel  and  turned  it. 
When  once  it  was  turned,  it  went  on  swiftly  till  mid-day.  After  mould- 
ing all  manners  of  vessels,  great  and  small,  he  began  making  one  espe- 
cially for  Pabhavatl  with  various  figures  on  it.  The  potter’s  work  is 
a favorite  simile  in  Buddhist  scriptures.* * 

In  this  respect  the  following  story  is  of  particular  interest:  “In 
the  town  of  Revata,  in  the  north-west  of  India,  there  lived  a master- 
potter,  who  prided  himself  on  his  dexterity.  He  was  waiting  for  the 
objects  which  he  manufactured  to  dry  on  the  wheel,  and  only  at  this 
moment  he  withdrew  them.  Knowing  that  the  time  of  his  conversion 
had  arrived,  Bhagavat  (Buddha)  transformed  himself  into  a master- 
potter,  and,  chatting  with  the  other  potter,  asked  him  why  he  did  not 
withdraw  from  the  wheel  the  plates  and  utensils.  The  potter  replied 
that  he  would  do  so,  when  they  were  perfectly  dry.  The  Buddha 
transformed  into  a man  said,  ‘Also  I withdraw  them,  when  they  are 
perfectly  dry.  You  and  I follow  the  same  procedmre.  I,  however, 
have  a special  method.  I withdraw  the  objects  only  after  they  are 
completely  baked  on  the  wheel.’  The  master-potter  retorted,  ‘You 


‘A.  Hillebrandt,  Ritual-Lit.,  Vedische  Opfer,  p.  8;  L.  D.  Barnett,  An- 
tiquities of  India,  p.  1 76. 

* Nos.  531  and  546  (Cowell  and  Rouse,  The  Jataka,  Vol.  V,  p.  151;  Vol.  VI, 
p.  188). 

® For  instance,  Dighanikaya,  II,  86  (R.  O.  Franke’s  translation,  p.  79);  T. 
Suzuki,  Agvaghosha’s  Discourse  on  the  Awakening  of  Faith,  pp.  74,  75. 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


173 


are  more  skilM  than  I am.’  The  Buddha  transformed  into  a man 
said,  ‘Not  only  do  I produce  on  the  wheel  objects  completely  baked, 
but  also  I can  produce  objects  formed  with  the  seven  precious  sub- 
stances.’ The  master-potter’s  eyes  were  opened:  he  immediately 
received  faith,  and  was  converted.  Thereupon  Bhagavat,  who  had 
transformed  himself  temporarily  into  a potter,  reassumed  his  proper 
body.  He  expounded  the  supernatural  and  subtle  law,  so  that  the 
potter’s  family  was  initiated  into  the  four  cardinal  truths.”  ^ 

In  southern  India,  wheel-made  pottery  came  into  general  use 
during  the  iron  age.^ 

The  cart-wheel  in  the  hands  of  the  Indian  potter  has  been  referred 
to.  This,  however,  is  an  exceptional  local  type,  while  commonly  the 
wheel  is  a plain  wooden  disk.  G.  C.  M.  Birdwood®  describes  it  as  a 
horizontal  fly-wheel,  two  or  three  feet  in  diameter,  loaded  heavily  with 
clay  around  the  rim,  and  put  in  motion  by  the  hand;  and,  once  set  spin- 
ning, it  revolves  for  five  or  seven  minutes  with  a perfectly  steady  and 
true  motion.  The  clay  to  be  moulded  is  heaped  on  the  centre  of  the 
wheel,  and  the  potter  squats  down  on  the  ground  before  it.  The  Tamil 
potters  (Kusavans)  are  divided  into  two  classes,  northern  and  southern; 
the  former  using  a wheel  of  earthenware,  the  latter  one  made  of  wood.'* 
Their  badge,  recorded  at  Conjiveram, is  a potter’s  wheel.®  The  Singalese 
wheel  (pdruva)  is  a circtflar  board,  about  two  feet  and  a half  in  diameter, 
mounted  on  a stone  pivot,  which  fits  into  a larger  stone  socket  em- 
bedded in  the  ground;  the  horizontal  surface  of  the  wheel  itself  standing 
not  more  than  six  inches  above  the  ground.  The  wheel  is  turned  by  a 
boy,  who  squats  on  the  ground  opposite  the  potter,  and  keeps  it  going 
with  his  hands.® 

Ceramic  art  is  very  ancient  in  Iran,  being  alluded  to  in  two  pass- 
ages of  the  Avesta.'^  In  the  latter,  mention  is  made  of  brick-layer’s 


* J.  Przyluski,  Le  Nord-ouest  de  I'lnde  dans  le  Vinaya  des  Mala-Sarvastivadin 
et  les  textes  apparentes  {Journal  asiatique,  1914,  nov.-dec.,  pp.  513,  514). 

^ R.  B.  Foote,  Gov.  Museum,  Madras,  Cat.  of  the  Prehistoric  Antiquities, 
p.  III.  In  regard  to  South-Indian  pottery  compare  also  R.  B.  Foote,  The  Foote 
Collection  of  Indian  Prehistoric  and  Protohistoric  Antiquities  (Madras,  1914; 
new  ed.,  1916);  and  A.  Rea,  Cat.  of  the  Prehistoric  Antiquities  from  Adichanallur 
and  Perumbair  (Madras,  1915).  F.  W.  v.  Bissing  {Sitzber.  Bayer.  Akad.,  1911, 
p.  16)  seems  to  overvalue  the  antiquity  of  the  potter’s  wheel  in  southern  India;  it 
is  certainly  out  of  the  question  that  it  should  be  older  there  than  in  Egypt. 

^ The  Industrial  Arts  of  India,  Vol.  II,  p.  144. 

‘ E.  Thurston,  Castes  and  Tribes  of  Southern  India,  Vol.  IV,  p.  113. 

* Ibid.,  p.  197. 

® A.  K.  CooMARASWAMY,  Mediaeval  Sinhalese  Art,  p.  219. 

^ Videvdat,  ii,  32;  viii,  84. 


174 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


or  potter’s  kilns.^  As  a rule,  the  kiln  is  the  natural  consequence 
of  the  wheel;  but  it  would  be  premature  to  conclude  from  this 
general  observation  that  for  this  reason  the  wheel  was  known  to 
the  Avestans.  It  is  not  specifically  mentioned  in  their  sacred  books; 
but  that  it  was  unknown  cannot  be  deduced,  either,  from  this 
silence. 

The  question  of  the  antiquity  of  the  potter’s  wheel  in  Babylonia 
seems  not  to  be  settled.  Perrot  and  Chipiez^  remark  that  the  inven- 
tion of  the  potter’s  wheel  and  firing-oven  must  have  taken  place 
at  a very  remote  period  both  in  Egypt  and  Chaldaea;  that  the  oldest 
vases  foimd  in  the  country,  those  taken  from  tombs  at  Warka  and 
Mugheir,  have  been  burnt  in  the  oven;  that  some,  however,  do 
not  seem  to  have  been  thrown  on  the  wheel.  All  that  Handcock* * 
states  regarding  the  wheel  is  a reference  to  the  article  of  Banks, 
whose  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  wheel  has  already  been  charac- 
terized as  unfounded  (p.  154).  In  Palestine  the  wheel  became  general 
from  the  sixteenth  century  b.c.  Likewise  the  Israelites  were  familiar 
with  it,  and  turned  almost  all  their  vessels  on  the  wheel.'*  As  has  been 
mentioned,  it  is  alluded  to  in  several  passages  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments.^ 

In  the  graves  of  the  Siberian  bronze  age  has  been  found  pottery  of 
inferior  workmanship,  made  by  hand,  of  a coarse  and  badly  baked 
clay.  That  from  the  graves  of  the  iron  age  appears  to  be  wheel-shaped, 
and  abounds  in  artistic  shapes.®  Its  historical  position  is  not  yet  ex- 
actly ascertained,  but  it  appears  to  bear  some  relation  to  Sc3rthian  and 
Iranian  cultures. 

In  ancient  Egypt  the  wheel  was  kno'wn  at  the  earliest  epoch  of  his- 
tory the  sculptures  of  which  have  been  preserved.'^  It  is  depicted  on 
the  monuments,  being  of  simple  construction  and  turned  ■with  the  hand. 


^ See  also  W.  Geiger,  Ostiranische  Kultur,  p.  390;  and  A.  V.  W.  Jackson, 
From  Constantinople  to  the  Home  of  Omar  Khayyam,  p.  234.  The  Avestan 
word  for  the  kiln,  tanura  (Middle  and  New  Persian  tanur)  is  regarded  as  a loan 
from  Semitic  tanur. 

^ History  of  Art  in  Chaldaea  and  Assyria,  Vol.  II,  p.  298. 

’ Mesopotamian  Archseology,  p.  334. 

* F.  ViGOUROux,  Dictionnaire  de  la  Bible,  Vol.  V,  pp.  573-574:  S.  Birch, 
Ancient  Pottery,  p.  107.  A photograph  from  Damascus  of  a potter  at  the  wheel 
is  reproduced  in  the  National  Geogr.  Mag.,  1911,  p.  67. 

^ Regarding  the  use  of  the  wheel  in  Asia  Minor,  see  W.  Belck,  Z.  f.  Ethnologic, 
Vol.  XXXIII,  1901,  p.  493. 

* W.  Radloff,  Aus  Sibirien,  Vol.  II,  pp.  89,  90,  129. 

’’  J.  G.  Wilkinson,  Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  Vol.  II, 
pp.  190-192  (new  ed.,  by  S.  Birch),  or  2d  ed.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  163. 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


I7S 

It  is  plausible  that  the  invention  spread  from  Egypt  or  Crete  to  Greece, 
and  from  there  to  Italyd 

The  gradual  dissemination  of  the  wheel  over  Europe  is  vividly 
illustrated  by  the  fact  that  in  every  culture-area  there  we  encounter 
a primitive  epoch  of  pottery-making,  which  shows  no  trace  of  the 
wheel,  but  a rude  hand-made  process.  Such  is  found  in  the  earliest 
stages  of  Hissarlik,  the  Homeric  Troy,  in  Italy,  central  and  north- 
ern Europe,  and  in  the  British  Isles.  During  the  second  settlement 
of  pre-Mycenccan  Hissarlik  (presumably  before  2000  b.c.)  we  observe 
the  beginning  of  the  use  of  the  wheel  and  the  covered  furnace.  Through- 
out the  Mycenasan  period,  pottery  was  turned  on  the  wheel.  The 
Swiss  lake-dwellers,  though  capable  potters,  were  unacquainted  with 
the  wheel.  Likewise  it  was  unknown  in  the  British  Isles  during  the 
bronze  period.^  In  the  north  of  Europe,  the  potter’s  wheel  appears  at 
a late  date  in  the  La-T^ne  period.  Thus  the  assumption  gains  ground 
that  Egypt  was  the  centre  from  which  the  wheel  gradually  spread  to 
southern,  and  ultimately  to  central  and  northern,  Europe. 

In  two  areas  of  the  Old  World,  accordingly,  we  can  clearly  observe 
a diffusion  of  the  wheel  from  one  point, — from  China  to  her  depen- 
dencies Korea,  Japan,  Annam,  and  Burma;  and  from  Egypt  to  Europe. 
India  was  perhaps  another  focus,  as  far  as  Sumatra  and  Java  are  con- 
cerned. A direct  transmission  of  the  device  from  Egypt  to  India  is 
conceivable,  though  it  is  of  course  impossible  to  furnish  the  exact  proof. 
It  is  inconceivable,  however,  that  the  wheels  of  India  and  China  should 
be  independent  from  those  of  the  West.  Not  only  is  there  a perfect 
coincidence  between  their  constructions  and  manipulations,  but  also 
the  culture-associations  by  which  the  wheel  is  surrounded  here  and 
there  are  strikingly  identical.  The  social  setting  of  the  wheel  and  the 
concomitant  culture-elements  have  been  characterized  above.  The 
wheeled  cart,  the  highly-developed  system  of  agriculture,  bronze  cast- 
ing, and  the  affiliation  of  pottery  with  the  latter,  are  features  pectiliar 
to  the  same  area,  and  absent  in  other  culture-zones.  Consequently 
the  presence  of  the  wheel  in  the  East  and  West  alike  cannot  be  attributed 
to  an  accident,  but  it  appears  as  an  organic  constituent  and  ancient 


'Regarding  details,  see  H.  Blumner,  Technologie,  Vol.  II,  pp.  36-40;  O. 
Schrader,  Reallexikon,  p.  868;  etc.  H.  B.  Walters  (Cat.  of  the  Greek  and  Etrus- 
can Vases  in  the  British  Museum,  Vol.  II,  p.  228)  describes  the  medallion  of  a 
kylix  on  which  a potter,  nude  and  beardless,  is  seated  before  a wheel;  on  it  is  a 
kylix  of  archaic  shape,  the  handle  of  which  he  is  moulding.  The  question  as  to 
whether  the  wheel  was  employed  in  Crete  at  an  earlier  date  than  in  Egypt,  or  vice 
versa,  must  be  left  to  the  decision  of  specialists  in  this  field. 

^ J.  Evans,  Ancient  Bronze  Implements  of  Great  Britain,  p.  487;  British  Mu- 
seum Guide  to  the  Antiquities  of  the  Bronze  Age,  p.  43. 


176 


Beginnings  of  Porcelain 


heritage  in  the  life  of  the  Mediterranean  and  great  Asiatic  civilizations. 
This  well-defined  geographical  distribution,  and  the  absence  of  the 
wheel  in  all  other  parts  of  the  globe,  speak  well  in  favor  of  a monistic 
origin  of  the  device. 


The  chief  results  of  the  present  investigation  may  be  summarized 
as  follows.  The  industry  of  ancient  Chinese  pottery,  in  its  principal 
technical  and  social  features,  has  exactly  the  same  foundation  as  the 
corresponding  industry  of  western  Asia,  Egypt,  and  India.  This 
phenomenon  is  only  one  of  a complex  of  others  with  which  it  is  in 
organic  cohesion;  that  is,  the  entire  economic  foundation  of  ancient 
Chinese  civilization  has  a common  basis  with  that  of  the  West.^  It  is 
a reasonable  conclusion  that  identity  of  apparatus  and  technical 
processes  must  have  yielded  similar  results.  Comparative  study  of 
forms,  however,  is  futile  for  the  present,  as  long  as  we  do  not  have  the 
very  earliest  prehistoric  ceramic  productions  of  China,  Central  Asia, 
Iran,  and  India.  This  much  is  evident,  that  only  by  co-ordination  can 
the  real  problem  to  be  pursued  be  solved,  and  that  isolation  or  detach- 
ment of  each  particular  field  will  yield  no  result  that  is  worth  while. 
The  incentive  for  the  process  of  glazing  pottery  was  received  by  the 
Chinese  directly  from  the  West,  owing  to  their  contact  with  the  Hel- 
lenistic world  in  comparatively  late  historical  times.  The  knowledge 
of  gljazing  rendered  the  manufacture  of  a porcelanous  ware  possible; 
yet  in  this  achievement  the  creative  genius  of  the  Chinese  was  not 
guided  by  outside  influence,  but  relied  on  its  own  powerful  resources. 
Nothing  of  the  character  of  porcelain  was  known  under  the  Han 
(206  B.c.-A.D.  220).  The  murrine  vases  of  the  ancients  were  not 
porcelain,  and  in  fact  bear  no  relation  to  China.  They  may  have  been 
instrumental,  however,  in  bringing  to  the  notice  of  the  Chinese  the 
beauty  and  effect  of  ceramic  glazes;  hence  the  manufacture  of  glazed 
ware  springs  up  in  the  age  of  the  Han,  more  particularly  under  the 
reign  of  the  Emperor  Wu  (140-87  b.c.).  It  is  admissible  to  place  the 
first  subconscious  gropings  with  ware  of  more  or  less  porcelanous  char- 
acter in  the  closing  days  of  the  Later  Han  dynasty;  and  under  the  Wei, 
in  the  middle  or  latter  part  of  the  third  century,  we  see  these  tentative 
experiments  ultimately  crowned  with  success.  Continued  till  the  end 
of  the  sixth  century  and  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  through  a long 
line  of  experiences  and  improvements,  they  gradually  resulted  in  the 


1 The  details  are  somewhat  more  developed  in  the  writer’s  popular  article 
Some  Fundamental  Ideas  of  Chinese  Culture  {Journal  of  Race  Development,  Vol.  V, 
1914,  pp.  160-174). 


The  Potter’s  Wheel 


177 


production  of  a true  white  porcelain.  Porcelain  is  not  an  invention, 
and  there  is  no  inventor  of  it.  It  is  not  in  a category  by  itself,  but  is 
only  a variety  of  pottery;  its  diversity  from  common  pottery  is  one  of 
degree,  not  of  principle. 

Finally,  the  question  may  be  raised  as  to  why  Chinese  records  on  all 
these  points  are  so  sparse  and  unsatisfactory.  The  same  observation 
holds  good  for  bronze,  iron,  wood-carving,  basketry,  and  other  ancient 
industries  and  crafts.  The  occupation  with  such  themes  on  the  part 
of  Chinese  scholars  begins  as  late  as  the  age  of  the  Svtng.  The  ancient 
professional  annalists  and  chroniclers  were  not  interested  in  the  doings 
and  thoughts  of  the  broad  masses  of  the  people.  If  they  recorded  with 
some  degree  of  exactness  the  invention  of  rag-paper  in  a.d.  105,  it  was 
for  the  reason  that  paper  had  a direct  bearing  on  the  life  and  work  of 
the  scholar.  The  plain  farmer-potter  of  old  led  a secluded  existence, 
far  removed  from  the  seats  of  scholarship.  The  average  type  of  Con- 
fucian  scholar  never  took  an  interest  in  technical  questions,  or  else 
looked  down  upon  these  without  a gleam  of  understanding.  Our  hopes 
for  further  elucidations  of  the  problems  connected  with  the  history  of 
pottery  in  China  must  be  placed  in  archaeology,  not  in  sinology,  which 
certainly  reflects  not  on  the  sinologue,  but  on  the  character  of  the 
scanty  source-material  that  has  fallen  to  our  lot. 


INDEX 


Abel-R(^musat,  12 1. 

Aeneas  of  Gaza,  142. 

Africa,  pottery  of,  152,  153. 

Ainu,  pottery  of,  149,  150. 

Alaska,  potteiy  of,  149. 

Alchemy,  113  note  i,  118,  142-143. 
Amber,  131. 

America,  potter's  wheel  absent,  in,  15 1; 

pottery,  occupation  of  woman,  in,  152. 
Amur  tribes,  pottery  of,  149,  166. 
Analyses,  of  body  of  porcelanous  Han 
pottery,  86;  of  Chinese  and  Japanese 
glazes,  90;  of  Chinese  and  Japanese 
porcelains,  86;  of  glaze  of  porcelanous 
Han  potterj',  90;  of  green  glaze  of  Han 
pottery,  93. 

Andaman,  unacquainted  with  potter’s 
wheel,  152,  153. 

Aristotle,  13 1. 

Assam,  kilns  of,  156. 

Aston,  W.  G.,  168,  169. 

Athenaeus,  13 1. 

Atkinson,  J.  J.,  151. 

Atlasov,  W.,  150. 

Augustus,  123. 

Australia,  pottery  unknown  in,  149. 
Avesta,  pottery  mentioned  in,  173. 

Babelon,  E.,  129. 

Bacon,  135. 

Baines,  A.,  154,  160. 

Banks,  E.  J.,  154. 

Barber,  E.  A.,  108. 

Barbosa,  135. 

Bartholomae,  126. 

Batchelor,  J.,  150. 

Bauer,  M.,  129. 

Baumann,  O.,  153. 

Belck,  W.,  174. 

Bemeker,  E.,  126. 

Berthelot,  M.,  142. 

Billequin,  A.,  166. 

Biot,  E.,  80,  154,  160,  170,  171. 

Birch,  S.,  165. 

Birdwood,  G.  C.  M.,  154. 

Bishop,  Mrs.,  168. 

Bissing,  F.  W.  v.,  173. 

Blumner,  H.,  127,  129,  133,  134,  164, 
175- 

Boas,  F.,  150. 

Bogoras,  V.,  150,  153. 

Bostock  and  Riley,  123. 

Boston  Fine  Arts  Museum,  porcelanous 
ware  in,  82,  100. 

Bretschneider,  E.,  112,  115. 


Brinckmann,  J.,  171. 

Brinkley,  F.,  165,  168. 

Bronze,  connection  of  with  pottery, 
161. 

Bronze-founder,  influence  of  on  potter, 
161. 

Browne,  Th.,  135. 

Bucaro,  131  note  i. 

Budge,  E.  A.  W.,  159. 

Burma,  pottery  of,  170. 

Bushell,  S.  W.,  95,  96,  loi,  102,  124,  138, 
140,  155,  163. 

Buttmann,  Ph.,  122. 

Byhan,  A.,  150. 

Cambodja,  liu-li  of,  143. 

Cardan,  J.,  122. 

Cntapatha  Brahmana,  156. 

Chang  Yi,  115,  118. 

Chao  Chang-li,  99. 

Chavannes,  E.,  83,  113,  124,  142,  144, 
146,  149,  156,  160. 

Che  ngo,  1 15. 

Cheng  lei  pen  ts'ao,  112,  113. 

Cheng  Ngo,  171. 

Ch'en  Yung-chi,  171. 

Chou  li,  80,  154,  170,  17 1. 

Chou  Shan,  146. 

Chu  Yen,  154. 

Chuang-tse,  117. 

Chukchi,  pottery  of,  150,  153. 

Cole,  H.  H.,  1 10,  162. 

Compton,  H.,  154. 

Cooking-stove,  of  iron,  79,  80. 
Coomaraswamy,  A.  K.,  no,  161,  173. 
Corsi,  F.,  129. 

Court,  pottery  destined  for  the,  loi. 
Couvreur,  S.,  105,  117. 

Crooke,  W.,  96,  159,  160. 

Crucibles  with  natural  glaze,  146. 

Dal,  V.,  125,  126. 

Dalton,  O.  M.,  137. 

Ditmar,  K.  v.,  150. 

Dobbs,  H.  R.  C.,  162,  165. 

Double  wheel,  used  by  potters  of  China, 
164;  in  Java,  165;  in  Japan,  165;  in 
Burma,  170. 

Easter  Island,  pottery  of,  149. 

Eggeling,  J.,  156. 
d’Entrecolles,  163. 

Erman,  A.,  163. 

Eskimo,  pottery  of,  1 49-1 50. 

Evans,  J.,  175. 


179 


i8o 


Index 


Fabricius,  B.,  125,  138. 

Fagfur,  126. 

Fan  yi  ming  i tsi,  139. 

Farfor,  Russian  designation  for  porce- 
lain, 126. 

Ferrand,  G.,  143. 

Fick,  R.,  160. 

Fischer,  A.,  166. 

Fluor-spar,  122. 

Foote,  R.  B.,  173. 

Forke,  A.,  141. 

Fourdrignier,  E.,  136. 

Fowke,  G.,  166. 

Franke,  R.  O.,  172. 

Freer,  C.,  82,  100. 

Fu-chou,  cinerary  urns  from,  84. 

Fu-nan,  143. 

Gait,  E.  A.,  156. 

Gammon,  C.  F.,  82,  83. 

Geerts,  A.  J.  C.,  118,  145. 

Geiger,  W.,  174. 

Gilyak,  pottery  of,  149. 

Glass,  138  note  4,  142,  147. 

Glazes,  introduction  of  into  China, 
120-147. 

Glazing,  ancient  Chinese  recipe  for,  135. 
Gowland,  W.,  168. 

Grandidier,  E.,  108. 

Grenard,  F.,  150. 

Gurdon,  Major,  153. 
de  Groot,  10 1. 

Hager,  J.,  12 1. 

Hahn,  E.,  158. 
du  Halde,  163. 

Han  art,  definition  of,  81. 

Han  pottery,  79-8 1,92,1 43-144, 1 7 1 ; men- 
tioned in  Chinese  records,  144  note  2. 
Han-tan,  kaolin  of,  113. 

Han  ts'e,  porcelanous  ware  of  the  Han 
period  or  of  Han  style,  79,  loi. 

Han  wu  ku  shi,  141. 

Handcock,  174. 

Hang  mountains,  1 16. 

Harrington,  M.  R.,  153. 
d’Herbelot,  126. 

Herzfeld,  E.,  97. 

Hillebrandt,  A.,  172. 

Hing  chou,  porcelain  of,  99. 

Hippisley,  102. 

Hirth,  F.,  103, 105,  in,  113, 123, 130, 139 
Ho-nan,  porcelain  of,  99. 

Hobson,  R.  L.,  84,  95,  98,  99,  loi,  104, 
108,  1 12,  120,  144,  145,  146,  148. 
Holder,  E.,  155. 

Holmes,  W.  H.,  151. 

Holt,  H.  F.,  84. 

Hou  Han  shu,  100,  168. 

Hough,  W.,  161. 

Hu  Ch'ung,  143. 

Hu  Tsung,  140. 

Hii-chou,  pottery  of,  106. 


Hu  K'ang-tsung,  149. 

Hua  yang  hien  chi,  144. 

Hua  yang  kuo  chi,  115. 

Huai-lu,  manufacture  of  stone  disks  in, 
162. 

Huai-nan-tse,  156. 

Huang-chi,  143. 

I-tsing,  95,  96. 

Ides,  E.  Y.,  136. 

India,  liu-li  of,  140,  143;  porcelain  in, 
95~96;  potter’s  wheel  of,  156-157; 
social  position  of  potters  in,  154. 

Iran,  pottery  in,  1 73-1 74. 

Jackson,  A.  V.  W.,  174. 

Jade,  not  to  be  understood  by  murrines, 
121. 

Jao  chou,  kaolin  of,  113;  porcelain  of,  99. 
Japan,  double  wheel  of,  165;  potter’s 
wheel  of,  158,  169-170;  prehistoric 
pottery  of,  150. 

Japan  Society,  Catalogue  of  Potteries 
published  by,  103. 

Jataka,  potter’s  wheel  in  the,  172. 

Java,  double  wheel  of,  165;  potter’s 
wheel  of,  152. 

Jeremiah,  158. 

Jouy,  P.  L.,  168. 

Julien,  S.,  86,  87,  97,  99,  loi,  102,  104, 
107,  108,  1 15,  1 18,  123,  145,  147,  163. 
Juvenalis,  124. 

Kaempfer,  E.,  136. 

Kamtchatka,  pottery  of,  150. 

Kaolin,  notes  on,  110-119. 

Karakhoto,  pottery  of,  146  note  4. 
Karlbeck,  O.,  84. 

Katyayana,  172. 

Kennedy,  J.,  137. 

Kershaw,  F.  S.,  82,  83. 

Khasi,  pottery  of,  153. 

Ki  chung  Chou  shu,  160. 

Kin,  palace  of,  146. 

King  te  chen  t'ao  lu,  97,  98,  loi,  105, 
106,  163. 

Kitsi,  kiln  of,  149. 

Kiu  T'ang  shu,  168. 

Kloss,  C.  B.,  153. 

Koptos,  scented  pottery  of,  13 1. 

Korea,  pottery  of,  166-167. 

K'ou  Tsung-shi,  113,  114. 

Krause,  J.  H.,  131. 

Ku  kin  chu,  141. 

Kuan-chung,  kilns  of,  loi,  102. 

Kuang  chi,  143. 

Kuang  ya,  115. 

Kuo  I-kung,  143. 

Kuo  P'o,  1 14,  1 18. 

Kuriles,  pottery  of,  150. 

Lang,  E.,  154. 

Le  Compte,  L.,  136. 


Index 


i8i 


Le  Coq,  A.  v.,  126. 

Lei,  type  of  jar,  79,  80. 

Legendre,  A.  F.,  149. 

Legge,  J.,  loi,  117,  160,  161. 

Lesson,  A.,  149. 

Li  ki,  1 17. 

Li  Shao-kiin,  142. 

Li  Shi-chen,  112,  113,  114,  115. 

Liang  shu,  142,  143. 

Liao  shi,  105. 

Lie-tse,  115  note  5. 

Ling  piao  lu  i,  1 13,  147. 

Liu  Hi,  1 16. 

Liu-li,  138-147. 

Liu-li  ku,  kiln  of,  145. 

Liu  Siin,  1 13,  146. 

Lui-li  wa,  100. 

Lo-lo,  unacquainted  with  pottery,  149. 
Loadstone,  104,  106. 

Lu  Kuang-wei,  Ii6. 

Lubbock,  J.,  151. 

Malayans,  potter’s  wheel  of,  152. 

Man,  E.  H.,  152,  153. 

Mariette,  P.  J.,  122. 

Martialis,  124,  129. 

Mason,  O.  T.,  151. 

Masudi,  126. 

Mei  Piao,  115. 

Melanesia,  pottery  of,  149,  153. 

Mdly,  F.  de,  104,  117. 
de  Mendoza,  136. 

Mineralogy,  Chinese  work  on,  115. 
Mo-ch'u,  = Javanese  mojo,  143  note  6. 
Mong  K'ang,  144,  145. 

Mong-tse,  160,  161. 

Mongol  dynasty,  glazed  potteiy  of,  145. 
Morse,  E.  S.,  164,  166,  169. 

Mu-nan,  140. 

Munro,  N.  G.,  169. 

Murdoch,  J.,  150. 

Murra,  125,  128,  138,  145. 

Murrine  vases,  120-138. 

Nan  chou  i wu  chi,  145. 

Nanjio,  Bunyiu,  115. 

Negrito,  unacquainted  with  pottery,  149. 
Negroes,  unacquainted  with  potter’s 
wheel,  152. 

Neuhof,  J.,  136. 

New  Zealand,  pottery  unknown  in,  149. 
Nichols,  H.  W.,  technical  report  of,  86-94. 
Nicobar,  pottery  of,  153. 

Nihongi,  168. 

Nordenskiold,  A.  v.,  12 1. 

Nordenskibld,  E.,  151. 

Okakura,  82. 

Pai  ngo,  111-114,  1 16. 

Pai  shan,  114-115. 

Pai  tun-tse,  118. 

Palladius,  100,  105,  106,  138. 


Pan-liang  coins,  82,  83,  100. 

Papinot,  E.,  168. 

Parthians,  kilns  of,  122,  12^,  126. 
Pausanias,  125,  137. 

Pelliot,  P.,  143. 

Pen  ts'ao  kang  mu,  104,  112,  113,  114. 
Pen  ts'ao  yen  i,  113,  114. 

Periplus  121,  137.  138. 

Perrot  and  Chipiez,  174. 

Petrie,  W.  M.  F.,  137,  138,  139,  147. 
Petrucci,  166. 

Petuntse,  no,  in,  118-119. 

Pie  lu,  113,  114,  118. 

Platt,  J.,  166. 

Pliny,  106,  121,  124,  127,  131,  132,  134. 
Po  Kit-i,  146. 

Polar  peoples,  pottery  of,  149-150. 
Polynesians,  unacquainted  with  pottery, 
149. 

Pompey,  123. 

Porcelain,  in  India,  95-96;  no  inventor 
of,  99;  of  Ts'e-chou,  104,  106. 
Porcelanous  Han  pottery,  analysis  of 
body  of,  86;  analysis  of  glaze  of,  90; 
chemical  character  of  body  of,  86; 
mode  of  preparation  of  glaze  of,  91; 
physical  character  of  body  of,  87. 
Potter’s  wheel,  see  wheel. 

Pouvourville,  A.  de,  170. 

Prestwich,  no. 

Propertius,  122,  124,  126. 

Przyluski,  J.,  173. 

Quichua,  pottery-making  of,  151. 

Radloff,  W.,  126,  174. 

Rea,  A.,  173. 

Reil,  T.,  13 1. 

Rein,  J.  J.,  168. 

Reinaud,  M.,  97. 

Rhys  Davids,  160. 

RinsO,  Mamiya,  149. 

Risley,  Sir  Herbert,  148,  154. 
Rock-crystal,  theories  on  the  origin  of, 
131;  vessels  of,  132,  133,  137. 

Rockhill,  W.  W.,  150. 

Roloff,  E.  H.,  122,  125. 

Romans,  159. 

Rondot,  N.,  99,  123. 

Saddle,  of  liu-li,  142. 

Saghalin,  pottery  of,  149. 

Salvetat,  A.,  86,  87,  90. 

Samarra,  excavations  in,  97-98. 

San  kuo  chi,  140. 

Saroshevski,  152. 

Sarre,  F.,  97,  98. 

Satow,  Sir  Ernest,  165. 

Scaliger,  J.  C.,  122. 

Scaliger,  J.  J.,  122. 

Scented  pottery,  13 1. 

Schmidt,  H.,  162. 

Schrenck,  L.  v.,  149. 


Index 


182 

Schurtz,  H.,  153. 

Seger,  H.  A.,  86,  87. 

Seligmann,  C.  G.,  151,  153. 

Se-ma  Siang-ju,  115. 

Se-ma  Ts'ien,  116,  124,  142. 

Se-tiao,  143. 

Shan  hai  king,  114,  116,  118. 

Shen-nung,  160. 

Shi  i ki,  141. 

Shi  ki,  1 15,  124. 

Shi  king,  alleged  poreelain  whistle  in,  loi . 
Shi  ming,  1 16. 

Shi  yao  erh  ya,  1 1 5. 

Shu  king,  pottery  not  mentioned  in,  102. 
Shun,  mythical  originator  of  pottery, 
159-160. 

Shuo  wen,  definition  of  the  term  ts'e  in, 
102-103;  definition  of  the  term  ngo  in, 
1 16. 

Si  king  tsa  ki,  142. 

Siberia,  pottery  of  tribes  of,  149,  174. 
Siebold,  P.  F.  v.,  149,  169. 

Singalese,  potter’s  wheel  of,  151;  potters 
of,  161. 

Smith,  F.  P.,  1 17. 

Smith,  W.,  130. 

Soleyman,  96,  97. 

Sprenger,  A.,  126. 

Squier  and  Davis,  161. 

Stage-fool,  1 17  note  2. 

Statius,  124. 

Stein,  Sir  Aurel,  98,  146. 

Strahlenberg,  P.  J.  v.,  150. 

Stull,  R.  T.,  93. 

Su  chou  fu  chi,  116. 

Su  Kung,  1 13. 

Su-shen,  168  note  i. 

Su  Sunjg,  1 13,  1 14. 

Suetonius,  123. 

Sumatra,  potter’s  wheel  of,  152. 

Suzuki,  T.,  172. 

Ta  T'ang  sin  yu,  98. 

Ta-ts'e,  mountains  of,  114. 

Ta  Ts'in,  138,  139,  143. 

Ta  Ts'ing  i t'ung  chi,  84,  104. 

T'ai  p'ing  huan  yu  ki,  99,  104,  107,  143, 
168. 

T'ai  p'ing  yu  Ian,  141,  142,  143,  145. 
Takakusu,  J.,  96. 

T'ang  leu  tien,  99. 

T'ang  pen  ts'ao,  112. 

T'ang  pen  yii,  112. 

T'ang  period,  porcelain  of,  99. 

T'ang  Shen-wei,  112. 

T'ang  shu,  99,  104,  105. 

T'ang  shu  shi  yin,  116. 

T'ao  Hung-king,  111-113. 

T'ao  shuo,  96,  98,  124,  145,  155. 

Taoists,  share  of  in  the  initial  produc- 
tion of  porcelain,  118. 

Thiersch,  F.,  122,  125,  128,  129,  132, 
134- 


Thurston,  E.,  155,  173. 

Tibet,  pottery  of,  150. 

Ting  chou,  porcelain  of,  99;  kaolin  of, 
.113- 

Ting  Tu,  107. 

Torii,  150,  166. 

Ts'ai  Yung,  101. 

Tse  jan  hui,  145. 

Ts'e,  does  not  refer  to  common  glazed 
Han  pottery,  100;  discussion  of  the 
term,  102-109. 

Ts'e-chou,  city  of,  104,  107  note. 

Tse  su  fu,  115. 

Tsi  yun,  107,  146. 

Tsin  shu,  141. 

Ts'ien  Han  shu,  107,  115,  140,  143, 
145- 

Ts'ui  Yung,  146. 

Ts'ung-lung,  mountains  of,  114. 

T'u  king  pen  ts'ao,  114. 

T'u  shu  tsi  ch'eng,  105. 

Tung-fang  So,  142. 

Turkistan,  porcelain  in,  98. 

Tu  tuan,  101. 

Tylor,  E.  B.,  149. 

Vedda,  pottery  of,  151,  153. 

Vigouroux,  F.,  174. 

Voss,  A.,  161. 

Walters,  H.  B.,  175. 

Wan  Chen,  145. 

Wang  Hui,  146. 

Watt,  G.,  110. 

Watts,  A.  S.,  110. 

Watters,  T.,  115. 

Wave  patterns,  81. 

Wei  lio,  138. 

Wheel,  potter’s,  148-176;  absent  in 
America,  150-151;  associated  with 
the  stage  of  agriculture,  159-161; 
geographical  distribution  of,  150;  in 
*59>  163,  174;  in  Old  Testa- 
ment, 158;  in  Palestine,  174;  influence 
of  on  progress  of  ceramics,  161-162; 
invention  of  man,  152-155;  of  ancient 
Europe,  175;  of  Babylonia,  154,  174; 
of  China,  162-164,  171,  175;  of  India, 
155-157,  172;  static  in  its  distribution, 
151;  technical  connection  with  cart- 
wheel, 156-158. 

Wheel-potters  and  moulders,  distinct 
professions  in  ancient  China  and 
India,  154. 

White,  M.,  155. 

Wieger,  L.,  115,  117. 

Wil£nson,  J.  G.,  174. 

Window-glass,  141. 

Wo-tsii,  burial  customs  of,  168  note  i. 

Wu,  Emperor,  140,  142. 

Wu  li,  143. 

Wu  P'u,  115,  118. 

Wu  p'u  pen  ts'ao,  115. 


Index 


Wu  ti  ki,  1 1 6. 

Wylie,  A.,  115. 

Yakut,  pottery  of,  152. 
Yang-shan,  ti6. 

Yellow,  color  of  earth,  114. 
Yen  Kan-yiian,  79,  80,  loi. 
Yen  Shi-ku,  116,  145,  159. 
Yi  ts'ie  king  yin  i,  96,  115, 
Yu  ngo,  1 17. 


183 


Yu  yang  tsa  tsu,  98,  140. 
Yuan  kien  lei  han,  143. 

Yuan  Ying,  96,  115,  131,  139. 
Yu  chou,  porcelain  of,  99. 

Yii  fang  kia  huo,  146. 

Yuan  shi,  105,  145. 

Yue  chou,  porcelain,  of,  99. 
Yule,  H.,  126,  135. 

131.  139- 

Zimmermann,  E.,  99,  164. 


PLATE  I. 


Han  Porcelanous  Pottery  (see  p.  79). 

Small  jug.  The  yellowish-green,  vitrified  porcelanous  glaze  covers  only  the 
medial  portion  of  the  body,  inclusive  of  the  two  ears  or  loop  handles.  The  exterior 
of  the  neck  and  the  base  are  unglazed.  In  the  base,  nail-marks  are  left.  The 
bottom  is  flat  and  without  a rim.  The  clay  appears  to  contain  iron  ore.  Found 
on  top  of  a cast-iron  stove  (Plate  II),  in  a grave  near  the  village  Ma-kia-chai,  5 li 
north  of  the  town  Hien-yang,  Shen-si  Province. 

Middle  or  end  of  the  third  century  a.d 
Height,  16.7  cm.  Cat.  No.  118718. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XV,  PLATE  I 


Han  Porcelanous  Jug. 


. ' oi,  y.'.\  P-A'^e  1 




gniioaioiq  £ 1>M  .fetlOri-gnbioito  svii  .^rin-r.trb  £ liav/  L.bivoTq  hfi£  oi'  £ io 

gnifersnoD  Koidqfa^jni  n£  Ja£0  fe;  *;al’G!  ydl  aO  .usdncusib  s'iri  scrj  5o  j.'.;.;.>'!  nl  o/ioh!;-!'] 
S«£'jy  JVOil  i ^5«a’^v3  ii  r)\  wfilbcDi'  .gtii^rr,?  lo  xt;jH  ni  ST^JorriG  iv  I'i'-:^i'i  ::js  >'., 
sio3  now  3£lT  -q  093  :("lEbtoi  eriJ  oJ  oIdsoon/-K3  od  jj  y^;M  htJrajlof  Jj  o:?)"; 
bsoeid.^td  oi  fW5Ci  dOD'tdo  driJ  HOEoqqtiq  noiJidirka  'loi  i£c!l  oa  ,byooqmoo3h  \;o'ii.tn3  ii 


?>>S  ' 


Plate  II. 


Cast-Iron  Stove  (see  p.  8o). 

Side  and  front  views. 

In  type  and  style  it  exactly  corresponds  to  the  Han  pottery  burial  cooking- 
stoves.  Posed  on  four  feet  in  the  form  of  elephant-heads,  it  is  built  in  the  shape 
of  a horse-shoe,  and  provided  with  a chimney,  five  cooking-holes,  and  a projecting 
platform  in  front  of  the  fire-chamber.  On  the  latter  is  cast  an  inscription  consisting 
of  six  raised  characters  in  Han  style  of  writing,  reading  ta  ki  ch'ang  i hou  wang 
(“Great  felicity!  May  it  be  serviceable  to  the  lords!”);  see  p.  79.  The  iron  core 
is  entirely  decomposed,  so  that  for  exhibition  purposes  the  object  had  to  be  braced 
on  wooden  supports.  Found  in  a grave  near  the  village  Ma-kia-chai,  5 li  north 
of  the  town  Plien-yang,  Shen-si  Province.  Inserted  here  as  collateral  evidence  in 
determining  the  provenience  and  date  of  the  pottery  jug  illustrated  in  Plate  I. 

End  of  Han  period  (a.d.  220),  or,  generally,  third  century  a.d. 

Height,  35  cm;  length,  71.5  cm;  width,  40.5  cm.  Cat.  No.  120985. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XV,  PLATE  II. 


Cast-Iron  Stove. 


”‘!  ^'.  <:  "*.  "■  '•' 


,’V.'  ■ •"■'■I- -,.‘ 


X 


I'-F  ■*  . 

,,i 

'■> 


f’li \ v M'.iS4.;  ‘>^  C>f  't-N* 


'® ^ ^.S:S ' ' . ' ■•”  ’'i 

■-'  . . ,X'-y  ^ ''  ' ^ ’ '' 


. *^'\’ •.  sJ'A*’**  ' •.  ixf ,'  '■J  *•  I'-Vf  •’■• 


Plate  III. 

Han  Porcelanous  Pottery. 

Small  jug.  The  interior  of  the  neck  is  glazed  in  its  upper  part.  Only  the 
upper  portion  of  the  body  is  coated  with  a thick,  lustrous,  porcelanous  glaze  of 
greenish-yellow  tinge,  interspersed  with  small  white  dots,  the  glaze  running  down 
in  streaks  over  the  lower  unglazed  part.  This  is  the  best-glazed  piece  in  the  lot. 
Two  rounded  ears  or  loop  handles  are  attached  to  the  shoulders. 

Middle  or  latter  part  of  third  century  a.d. 

Height,  20.1  cm.  Cat.  No.  118723. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XV,  PLATE  lit 


HAN  PORCELANOUS  JUG 


■;.v'  • 


• vv.«,  *p  ^ 


, -^T'^  , ‘ , ■ 

i/.  ' ■ v,-,  ;■ 

J ' i ; ij-  • V ■'’cyjv? ■■;-■- 

t.>i'  yf.vv.v 'oU/'i'i'.'-  ■■>  •vof/.T 

■•iC'ol  • 'j. /qqo 

■ -Vw  '(NT  , f ^;v -r.'yyjvii'  ■■.■..■  ' i..-, > ,,■  •::'vy>"y'-;!j 

■ r— ■ ■ j ‘.•••.7*! >■:.•. ■••  ■■■':•'  ■■  : ■ 

■ • , ■ ; . : ; ; 

V' Vj;'' . :,i  . ‘..''  .ji  ■ ' ■'  , v;,  ;;■ 

'I'  ui  i : ^ •■  ■ . ! '<)[[« 

h'.th  •.y.'-yif  f<-,2  ■'•'  .-.i.-vi-;' . 

'ivrfljytH  y; ui'  -jv.vj.H  '»><?’.  .-ifiiv?- 

’:>-o  i.l'-.  ..  ' •;  I-;;-, 

r;,;o  ,i-iL.  y.-vi.' Ofy;  y ,y''y;  ■■■■■'.'tjiCf'.- 

% ■<^r-ys  i-y'  ;--j  '■yu-:  :•  ■'■■yr:.'.  j' 


Plate  IV. 

Han  Porcelanous  Pottery. 

Large  globular  vase  of  harmonious  proportions,  decorated  with  two  opposite 
animal  (tiger)-heads  in  flat  relief,  holding  dead  rings,  of  the  same  style  as  in  com- 
mon Han  pottery.  In  the  middle  between  these  heads,  but  somewhat  higher,  and 
opposite  each  other,  are  two  semi-circular  loop  handles  stuck  on  to  the  body  of 
the  vessel,  obviously  for  the  passage  of  a cord,  by  means  of  which  the  vase  was 
held  and  carried.  Each  handle  is  bordered  by  two  knotted  bands  moulded  sep- 
arately in  high  relief.  This  feature, — that  is,  the  combination  of  loop  handles  with 
tiger-heads, — to  my  knowledge,  does  not  occur  in  ordinary  Han  pottery.  The 
slip  appears  to  have  been  lost  in  part  of  the  neck.  The  glaze  exhibits  various 
tinges  of  light  green,  mingled  with  the  deep  brown  of  the  slip,  and  interspersed 
with  black  spots,  the  brown  approaching  that  of  maple-leaves  in  the  autumn. 
The  red-brown  slip  covers  one  side  of  the  neck  and  almost  the  entire  base;  in  the 
middle  portion  the  porcelanous  glaze  appears  to  be  laid  over  this  slip.  Three 
bands,  each  consisting  of  three  concentric  grooves,  in  the  same  manner  as  in  Han 
pottery,  are  laid  around  the  body.  The  bottom  is  flat,  and  has  along  the  rim 
a broad  grayish  ring  of  irregular  form  and  depth.  The  walls  of  the  vessel  are  un- 
usually thick,  and  its  weight  is  almost  six  pounds. 

Third  century  a.d. 

Height,  35.4  cm.  Cat.  No.  118720. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XV,  PLATE  IV 


Han  Porcelanous  Vase 


) 


% 


■‘K- 


" « ■•■ . 


^m  . 


'■"-r  '•  '^3 


J n 


-'■Mm 

'K'-'-'}:M 


. ■ >?! 


>C 


}fj* 


I- 

i 

I- 


Plate  V. 


Han  Porcelanous  Pottery. 

Small  jar,  now  unglazed,  but  originally  glazed  in  its  middle  portion;  when 
found,  covered  all  over  with  masses  of  earth,  the  glaze  having  been  destroyed  by 
chemical  influences  under  ground,  and  a white  engobe  being  left  in  its  place.  A 
wave-band,  each  consisting  of  five  lines,  presumably  done  by  means  of  a roller, 
runs  around  the  upper  rim  and  the  neck.  A double  knot  in  low  relief  is  stamped 
above  the  loop  handles,  which  terminate  in  a flat  ring  fiUed  with  incised,  radiating 
lines,  apparently  the  reproduction  in  clay  of  a metal  ring.  The  bottom  is  raised 
on  a rim,  about  i cm  high. 

Third  century  a.d. 

Height,  21.2  cm.  Cat.  No.  118717. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XV.  PLATE  V 


Han  Porcelanous  Jar. 


f.'f '.C  siWiEUM  Dr  riATO«.»‘>  HtSTOHV. 


•::v  JV,  VririvSCTiPi  • 


Plate  VI. 

Han  Porcelanous  Pottery. 

Globular  vase,  slightly  asymmetrical,  a narrow  medial  zone  reaching  from  the 
neck  down  to  the  shoulders  being  well  coated  with  a uniform,  lustrous,  yellowish- 
green  porcelanous  glaze;  the  neck  and  base  showing  a glossy  brown  slip.  Its  inte- 
rior is  glazed  over  a space  of  6 cm.  Decorated  with  three  incised  wave-bands, 
bordered  by  deep  grooves,  the  lower  one  under  the  glaze.  The  almost  semi-circular 
loop  handles  exhibit  a leaf  or  fish-bone  design. 

Third  century  a.d. 

Height,  25.2  cm.  Cat.  No.  118721. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XV.  PLATE  VI. 


Han  Porcelanous  Vase. 


» «ar' " 


,1«'r  - -:  ;• 


. vM! , XV,  jn-ATP  ,')x,  _,- 


Plate  VII. 


Han  Porcelanous  Pottery. 

Large  globular  vase,  in  its  medial  portion  and  inside  of  the  neck  coated  with  a 
thin,  but  evenly  distributed  porcelanous  glaze.  Wave-band  along  upper  rim,  and 
a broader  wave-band  of  bolder  design  around  the  neck.  The  loop  handles  show 
a fish-bone  design  incised  under  the  glaze.  Flat  bottom  without  rim.  Of  almost 
perfect  workmanship. 

Third  century  a.d. 

Height,  34.8  cm.  Cat.  No.  118722. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XV,  PLATE  VII. 


Han  Porcelanous  Vase. 


ii*-  rKff'n 


5lr-' 


M'Wf--  :r' ;'y ; .■ ' ?;"■  '■■  ■/;r  ■ 


V ■ •.  -W"  •:■  ■■  ■ 

•’i.^^'i'r O’!! _ '!';'’■  •:^/'-;;/;'  '’'''vi^^  ■■'■i'r/  ■ " '' 

vif- '(nvi  ‘ '^ . 'io-  h -tdoff?'  ;&■'  .V.>  pj&C[ 

'^l'y->  :.■'■'?/  «rtf S;  W ;?;  ; fSy>oxii  ■ obia 

;• . ■ x.'i  •'. Hx'4^>‘bs-t-v;  Si‘ y';i»''.lh'y'.! 

:;.v«;.i^-;;’,  Tjc-V» J;  fc>v.  bsiifeV ‘'•’^(  ■;,  >'>'•, iy'o'g 

' ' y’  ■ .'  ■ '■  ■ , '■!  •;.'  , ' i icbx'J.'i'i: 


,JtS^55.iI  m'A  .ii  '"i- 


:h;h 


.a^-'l- 


U'y^)'<oH 


■ Y.y.-y,':-Y 
) -/r  . ' 


.'•;'X‘1,':';-'J  v 

i , **•''»  ^ * 


PLATE  VIII. 


Han  Porcelanous  Pottery. 

Large  vase  with  asymmetrical  neck,  apparently  turned  out  by  an  unskilled 
potter.  A large  piece  is  broken  out  of  the  neck  (found  in  this  condition)  on  the 
side  of  the  vase  not  shown  in  the  illustration.  The  glaze,  covering  only  the  middle 
portion,  is  thick  and  unevenly  applied,  in  some  instances  forming  small  warts  or 
globules.  Decorated  with  two  wave-bands.  Loop  handles  with  fish-bone  design. 
The  bottom  is  raised  on  a rim  i cm  high. 

Third  century  a.d. 

Height,  27.2  cm.  Cat.  No.  118724. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOL03Y,  VOL.  XV,  PLATE  VIII. 


Han  Porcelanojs  vase. 


.■^’  • • . •■  ' .'V  ■■':  • ' .■■■■■'■ 

• ■,,■■'  \ : ' « A’  VP.  » -‘ 


'7- 


i'  W'/  r: 


’■  ■■ . V-*',  " ■ 


'*  v>T  k *) 


' • V *?i  '■,'  .'  > '■■''■•'  ' '■■■  ^-*^’'’ ' ' '■■  ] v ' .'’■  '■■  V ' .‘'''  ■'■■-'  ."I'l'o'vi." ' , .:■,'  - '>,r<  ■;/■  ■'  '■i'i 


PLATE  IX. 


Han  Porcelanous  Pottery. 

Large  ovoid  vase  of  good  proportions,  of  light-reddish  clay,  glazed  in  the  medial 
portion  and  in  the  interior  of  the  neck,  exterior  of  neck  and  base  being  coated  with 
a brown  slip.  Two  wave-bands.  Loop-handles  with  leaf  design  of  raised'  lines. 

Third  century  A.D. 

Height,  35.6  cm.  Cat.  No.  118719. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XV,  PLATE  IX. 


Han  Porcelanous  Vase, 


'7^ 


A • .-X 


7 


.}  '>V’  ■ ^ 

... 

'iti  i.""  a.*j«2 


•V  ,.  . . AiP/lif.  ■;!■•■  ’ ■ ' ’ • .' 


I 


' 


I 


PLATE  X. 

Han  Porcelanous  Pottery. 

Jar  of  the  type  lei  The  bottom  inside  is  glazed.  The  exterior  is  glazed 
as  far  down  as  the  middle  of  the  body;  the  base  is  coated  with  a brown-red  slip. 
The  handles  are  glazed  only  in  their  upper  portions.  A wave-band  is  run  over 
the  shoulders  under  the  glaze,  passing  below  the  loop  handles.  The  latter  are 
wrought  into  the  appearance  of  an  elaborate  animal-head  of  similar  style,  that 
i s moulded  in  relief  on  the  body  of  the  vessel. 

Third  century  a.d. 

Height,  25.9  cm.  Cat.  No.  118864. 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROFOLCGY.  VOL.  XV,  PLATE  X. 


Han  Forcelanous  Jar. 


I" 


PLATE  XI. 


Chinese  Potter’s  Wheel  (see  p.  162). 

From  kiln  near  Peking.  Table  of  clay,  52  cm  in  diameter  on  the  top,  60  cm 
across  the  opening  below. 

In  the  collections  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York. 
Secured  by  the  writer  in  1903. 

Height,  1.24  m.  Cat.  No.  — 

12797 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XV,  PLATE  XI. 


Chinese  Potter’s  Wheel  of  Clay. 


,i;;:  :t TAJ'S  ■ , ^ 

.vC-i -y  V;  ,!v;!' :?j3 

C'-  ^>ir  j ■/;'  ' : - j JiTl " -;s'^:L’;.T  ■ .i-' 

./,  t;  s ri  v'A --c'/t  I' •'■-■y  ;:  ^.•:■''qV:  ■’  J r.  ,;  , ■;!.:;  • :■  ■/:  ■ ■ .,  • ; 

-i:':  ■ ro  v’  A .s.J^  ... 

. . ' ' T'i  . V , . J 

'H^'A  .YToi~:K  Uy~y<-'.  '.  '.i  t-tooskH  rrK’->'iS:r»7.  '^J.  >j  jJ.c’  ' 5 ,7 

■ ..r'T.  -ijjr;—  1.-;  -'jn?: 

. Jj1_.  .oK  - 


PLATE  XII. 

Chinese  Potter’s  Wheel  (see  p.  162). 

From  kiln  near  Peking,  The  table  is  formed  by  a heavy  stone  disk  60  cm 
in  diameter  and  9 cm  thick.  On  top  of  it  is  placed  a small  wooden  table,  35  cm  in 
diameter.  The  main  shaft  is  of  wood  and  87  cm  high;  the  two  wooden  side-supports 
are  37  cm  in  length. 

In  the  collections  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  New  York. 
Secured  by  the  writer  in  1903. 

Cat.  No.  — 72_. 

12798 


FIELD  MUSEUM  OF  NATURAL  HISTORY. 


ANTHROPOLOGY,  VOL.  XV,  PLATE  XII. 


Chinese  Potter’s  Wheel  of  Stone. 


I 


\ 


i 

■'I 


f 


I 


i: 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY 


3 3125  00015  5339 


